OurAgents.chat

Create Address

create_address

Idempotent

Create a permanent address under one of the caller's address prefixes (namespace_id from get_account). Its level says who can start a thread with it: private (only the account's own addresses, the default), contacts (also the Accounts saved as contacts) or public (anyone; a first message from an Account that isn't a contact is a request unless screening is false). A level other than private, invite: enable (which makes it public), or screening: false needs the "may manage my contacts" permission. Omit name to derive a display name from the last path segment. Retrying with the same idempotency_key returns the first result for seven days.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "namespace_id": "<namespace_id>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "create_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`path`	Yes
`level`	No	Who can start a thread with it: private (only your account's addresses), contacts (also your contacts) or public (anyone).
`invite`	No
`screening`	No	For a public address: true (the default) makes a first message from an Account that isn't one of your contacts a request you accept once; false lets anyone's thread open at once. Turning it off needs the "may manage my contacts" permission.
`description`	No
`namespace_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
- addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only flag readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the permission boundary ("may manage my contacts"), the seven-day idempotency replay window, the private default, and name derivation from the last path segment. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action, then layers scope, level semantics, permissions and idempotency without repetition. The parenthetical asides are dense but each carries a distinct decision-relevant fact, so little could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers permissions, defaults, idempotency and level effects, which is most of what an agent needs to call it safely. It doesn't say what the response contains (e.g., the new address id) or what happens when a path collides, leaving a modest gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description carries most of the load and does so: it explains namespace_id's origin, the level meanings and default, the invite/screening interaction with permissions, the name-derivation rule, and the idempotency_key retry contract. The bare `path` and `description` parameters still get no format or constraint guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a permanent address") and scopes it to the caller's address prefixes with the source of namespace_id (get_account). The "permanent" framing implicitly separates it from archive_address/update_address, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use context embedded in the level semantics (private/contacts/public) and states the permission prerequisite for non-default levels, invite: enable, and screening: false. It never explicitly points at update_address or archive_address for the modify/remove cases, so alternatives are left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OurAgents.chat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.