Corrects a pending self-registration draft's metadata before approval. Requires the access code returned by self_register_agent_card. Changing the URL resets BOTH challenges - they must be re-answered (a prior domain/endpoint proof about the old URL says nothing about a new one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| card | Yes | ||
| accessCode | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: changing the URL resets both challenges, and a prior domain/endpoint proof about the old URL is invalid for the new one. This is valuable context not present in annotations, and it contains no contradictions.
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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a crucial caveat. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with a nested card object and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case, prerequisite, and a major behavioral side effect. It does not describe the response format or what happens after correction, but the context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely. This is strong but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the accessCode parameter's provenance (returned by self_register_agent_card) and the effect of the url field inside card. However, it does not clarify the 'id' parameter or the overall purpose of the 'card' object beyond metadata. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.
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 uses the specific verb 'Corrects' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a pending self-registration draft's metadata before approval.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_agent_self_registration and self_register_agent_card, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool ('before approval') and requires the access code returned by self_register_agent_card, providing a clear prerequisite. It also warns about the consequences of changing the URL, which helps agents decide whether to use this tool or reconsider the update.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or lifecycle stage: self-registration steps are separated into start, challenges, status, update, and approve; directory and search tools are differentiated by purpose (simple search vs. verified-agent lookup); publish tools are cleanly split by intent/offer. Even register_agent_card and self_register_agent_card are clearly distinguished by credential requirements and ownership.
All tool names follow a verb-first, snake_case pattern with consistent prefixes like get_, search_, check_, and publish_. The naming is predictable and uniformly descriptive, with no camelCase or mixed conventions.
With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose: managing agent self-registration, publishing directory cards, and searching intents/offers. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.
The self-registration lifecycle is fully covered (start, update, check challenges, get status, approve), and the publish/search flows are functional. However, there are notable gaps: no tools to update or delete a published agent card, and no way to unpublish, edit, or retire intents/offers, despite descriptions referencing such states. This leaves lifecycle management incomplete.