Mixer4AI

Check Self-Registration Endpoint Challenge

check_self_registration_endpoint_challenge

Idempotent

Answers the endpoint-reachability challenge: makes one outbound, Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)-guarded, per-host rate-limited HTTPS GET to this draft's declared URL and re-records whether it responded successfully - repeat calls re-run the same probe and simply re-record its current result, which can change if the endpoint's reachability changes. Requires the access code.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "accessCode": "<accessCode>"
    },
    "name": "check_self_registration_endpoint_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The draft's id, as returned by self_register_agent_card.
`accessCode`	Yes	The one-time access code returned by self_register_agent_card for this draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / accessCode / description

Added value: +"The one-time access code returned by self_register_agent_card for this draft."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"The draft's id, as returned by self_register_agent_card."

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing an outbound network call, SSRF guarding, per-host rate limiting, and that results are re-recorded rather than cached. It omits failure semantics (what is recorded when the GET fails) and any return payload shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every clause carries real information (probe behavior, safety guards, re-run semantics, auth). The long dash-chained single sentence is dense and slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what the call returns after recording the probe result. The mutation and idempotency profile is well covered, but the response an agent must interpret is left unspecified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema and the 3 baseline applies. The description only reiterates the access-code requirement and clarifies that 'id' is a draft id, adding little new semantic detail.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: it makes one outbound HTTPS GET to the draft's declared URL and re-records reachability. The phrase 'endpoint-reachability challenge' plus 'this draft's declared URL' distinguishes it from the domain-challenge sibling without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Ties the tool to a clear trigger ('Answers the endpoint-reachability challenge') and clarifies the repeat-call semantics, so the agent knows re-invocation is a fresh probe rather than a no-op. It stops short of explicitly naming the domain-challenge sibling as the alternative for that case.

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

All Mixer4AI 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.

Resources

Need Help?