alter_presence_readRead whether a ~handle is publicly 'open', the shop-front sign. Free for callers. Reports whether the handle is currently set to public/open. Returns open-or-closed only; the specific non-open state is never disclosed. The handle must have enabled public presence AND currently be in the 'open' state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Target ~handle to read, e.g. ~blake. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Free for callers' (cost), the privacy constraint 'the specific non-open state is never disclosed', and a prerequisite ('must have enabled public presence AND currently be in the open state'). While the prerequisite could be slightly clearer, it enriches understanding beyond annotations.
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 concise at about four sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information (purpose, cost, return value, prerequisite). The last sentence is slightly awkward but not redundant or overly verbose.
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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns ('open-or-closed only'), the prerequisite, and the cost model. It does not need to elaborate on return structure since the output is described, and annotations cover safety.
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 'handle' parameter, and the schema description already explains the format ('Target ~handle to read, e.g. ~blake'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so this meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('whether a ~handle is publicly open'), and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings by emphasizing it is a read operation. The 'shop-front sign' metaphor and 'Returns open-or-closed only' further pin down its exact scope.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check public presence of a handle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the emphasis on 'read' and the limited return value ('open-or-closed only') implies when it is appropriate. The sibling set (e.g., alter_login_status) provides additional context, so the guidance is adequate.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: alter_verify and alter_resolve_handle both check if a handle exists, and hello_agent and get_started both serve as introductions. However, descriptions clarify the distinctive features (canonical form vs simple existence; server info vs overview), so most pairs are distinguishable.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use the alter_ prefix (alter_login_status, alter_whoami), while others use bare verb_noun forms (describe_traits, get_network_stats). Verbs vary across describe, get, hello, list, recommend, and register, making the set feel disjointed and unpredictable.
With 14 tools, the count is within the ideal range for an identity infrastructure server. There are a few redundant tools (hello_agent vs get_started, verify vs resolve), but overall the surface is reasonably scoped without being overwhelming.
The server covers registration, existence checks, and reference data, but lacks any tool for querying identity fields (despite describe_competencies and describe_traits hinting at query_field). There are also no update or delete operations for identities or presence, leaving significant gaps for common workflows.