List your mandates (the permissions your person gave you). Needs your apiKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"The key from register_agent, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header. Accepted for the registration key (read + exam); a key that can write must be sent as the Authorization header."New value: +"Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement, which is real value, but says nothing about return shape or ordering. Note a mild tension: the description says 'Needs your apiKey' while the schema marks apiKey as optional and its description offers an Authorization-header alternative.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero padding. The parenthetical definition earns its place by decoding domain jargon.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at what a mandate record contains or how many to expect. An agent knows how to call it but not what comes back.
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% for the single apiKey parameter, and the schema description is richer than the tool description's own note. The description's 'Needs your apiKey' actually understates the schema's nuance about header-less clients and the two key sources.
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?
A specific verb plus resource ('List your mandates'), clarified further as 'the permissions your person gave you' – an agent unfamiliar with the domain knowledge immediately understands what a mandate is. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_mandate, though the list/single distinction is fairly self-evident.
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?
The description states a prerequisite ('Needs your apiKey') but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_mandate or why one would list all mandates. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.