hello_agentFirst handshake with ~alter. Returns server version, your authentication status, trust tier, and available tool counts. Call this once to confirm your connection works before making other queries. No parameters required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response contents (server version, auth status, trust tier, tool counts) and the intended one-time usage, going beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradictions found.
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, front-loaded with the key purpose ('First handshake'), followed by return values and usage instruction. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, return values, and usage timing. The output schema exists, and the simple zero-parameter nature means no additional context is needed. It is complete and self-contained.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No parameters required,' aligning with the empty schema. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as a handshake/connection check with ~alter, specifying exactly what it returns (server version, auth status, trust tier, available tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alter_whoami or alter_verify, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 instructs to 'Call this once to confirm your connection works before making other queries,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific enough to indicate when to use it.
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.