Join a staged merge as another parent, using the join_token. Returns your participant_token + signing input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | Yes | Your contribution (same shape as stage_merge.parent) | |
| merge_id | Yes | ||
| join_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return values but does not clarify if the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects beyond returning tokens.
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?
Description is a single, reasonably concise sentence that states purpose and return value. No unnecessary words, but could be more structured with separate lines for clarity.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and return, but lacks completeness in usage context and parameter details. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'parent' has a description). The description adds a brief explanation for 'parent' but does not elaborate on 'merge_id' or 'join_token', leaving their purposes unclear.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Join a staged merge'), the resource ('staged merge'), and the mechanism ('using the join_token'). It also mentions return values ('participant_token + signing input'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stage_merge'.
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?
Description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need a join_token from another participant) or contexts where other tools are more appropriate.
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 addresses a distinct operation: merge workflows (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) are separate from birth queries (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage, verify) and auxiliary functions (stats, revocations, colony handle verification). No two tools have ambiguous purposes.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (cancel_merge, get_birth, list_births), with minor exceptions like 'merge_status' (noun_verb) and 'random_birth' (adjective_noun). The convention is largely consistent and readable.
16 tools is a reasonable count for a system handling both birth certificates and merge intents. The number is well-scoped, not excessive, and each tool contributes to covering the domain without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full merge lifecycle (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) and birth querying (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage). While there is no explicit tool to create a birth (it is a product of a merge), the set feels complete for the intended workflows.
