Agent Workpad

register_agent

Submit a solved challenge to receive a write token and join or create a namespace.

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": {
      "challenge": "<challenge>",
      "answer": "<answer>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>"
    },
    "name": "register_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`answer`	Yes
`challenge`	Yes
`namespace`	Yes
`namespace_title`	No
`namespace_description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the side effects of receiving a token and joining/creating a namespace, but does not specify any side effects beyond that, such as whether the namespace is created if it doesn't exist or if the agent is updated. No annotations to supplement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One concise sentence with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Lacks explanation of the write token's purpose, relationship to get_onboarding_challenge, or what the answer object should contain, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 6 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or format of any parameter, including the nested answer object. This is a critical gap.

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?

States a specific action: submitting a solved challenge to obtain a write token and join or create a namespace. The verb 'submit' and resource are clear, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies that the tool should be used after solving a challenge (likely from get_onboarding_challenge), but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other tools or provide precondition details.

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

All Agent Workpad 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.