Pane

Manage Agent Identity

agent

Agent identity and binding. Actions: whoami returns the resolved relay URL, the active profile and whether a key is configured, with no network call and no secrets; claim binds this agent to a human using a one-shot claim code from their Settings UI, and is one-way; logout clears the locally saved key and profile but does not revoke it on the relay, which is what the key tool's revoke action does.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No	The one-shot claim code (required for claim).
`action`	Yes	Agent identity. whoami: show the resolved relay URL, active profile, and whether a key is configured (no network, no secrets). claim: bind this agent to a human via a one-shot claim code the human generated in their Settings UI (one-way). logout: clears the locally-saved key/profile; the key is not revoked on the relay, which is what the key tool's revoke action does.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: whoami has no network call or secrets, claim is one-way, and logout only clears local state without revoking on the relay. The annotations are all false, providing no safety signals, so this context is valuable.

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 description opens with the tool's purpose, then lists actions in a structured way. It is somewhat lengthy but each clause adds necessary detail. No filler text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers all actions, their side effects, and alternatives. It even describes the return value for whoami, which is useful given no output schema. Complete for a three-action tool with two parameters.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including detailed action semantics. The description adds little beyond what the schema's action enum already documents, such as the Settings UI origin for the code, but this is also present in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states 'Agent identity and binding' and enumerates the three actions (whoami, claim, logout) with specific behaviors. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the `key` tool's revoke action for logout's non-revocation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states that logout does not revoke the key on the relay, directing the user to the `key` tool's revoke action for that purpose. Also clarifies whoami makes no network call and claim requires a one-shot code from the Settings UI.

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

All Pane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: row operations (get/list/upsert/update/delete/restore) are clearly separated, while apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members, publisher, review, and taste each cover a different domain. Even closely related actions like share_link_rotate and domain_set have clearly scoped descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use two patterns: noun-like names for resource areas (apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members) and verb_noun names for row operations (upsert_row, delete_row, etc.). This deviation is predictable and readable, but it is not perfectly uniform, so a slight deduction applies.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform (app lifecycle, data storage, attachments, community, reviews, feedback, identity) justifies the count. Each tool represents a meaningful feature area with multiple internal actions, so none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for apps (create, read, update, delete), rows (create, read, update, delete, restore, list deleted), attachments, membership, grants, ingest, community, and reviews. Obvious gaps like rollback or version history are not core to the domain, and the presence of get_skill helps agents understand the workflow.

Resources

Need Help?