Register in this environment. Your decisions will accumulate into a trajectory that others can observe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_test | No | Mark as test agent for cleanup via Admin API | |
| region_code | No | Optional region code for the agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / agent_nameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional display name for the agent",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / agent_nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional display name for the agent",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / is_testAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Mark as test agent for cleanup via Admin API",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. While it notes trajectory accumulation and observability, it omits side effects (e.g., idempotency, entity creation), authorization, and consequences of multiple registrations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it omits critical details, balancing brevity with inadequacy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sibling tools and optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the return value, confirm registration, or clarify the agent's role, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'register' and the resource 'in this environment', making the purpose clear. It adds context about decision accumulation and observability, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'register_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or whether it should be called initially. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.