get_pairing_codeIssue a fresh pairing code + URL (TTL 10 minutes) for claiming a hatch (tenantId) or authorizing an agent session in a workspace (workspaceId). Render pairingUrl as a QR for the Vibe Rooster app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | No | Hatch id from hatch response (consumer path). | |
| workspaceId | No | Workspace id for B2B agent pairing (partner path). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavior context: the code is fresh, has a 10-minute TTL, and produces a pairingUrl to render. It does not disclose whether issuing a new code invalidates previous ones, but the TTL and freshness are meaningful additions.
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 compact and front-loaded. It states the core action, the TTL, the parameter-specific use cases, and the QR rendering instruction in two sentences with no filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the code and URL, the TTL, and the pairingUrl field. It covers both optional parameters and their contexts. It could be slightly more explicit about providing exactly one of tenantId or workspaceId, but the overall guidance is sufficient.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking tenantId to the 'claiming a hatch' consumer path and workspaceId to the 'B2B agent pairing' partner path, clarifying when each optional parameter is relevant.
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 a specific verb ('Issue') and identifies the exact resource ('pairing code + URL') with a scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like poll_pairing by focusing on issuing a fresh code rather than polling for its status.
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 clearly states the two use cases: claiming a hatch with tenantId and authorizing an agent session with workspaceId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context makes the appropriate usage clear.
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.
Core actions like hatch, convert, upload, and lookup are generally distinct, but the polling family (poll_approval, poll_decision, poll_pairing) is easy to confuse, and await_decision misleadingly sounds like a wait operation rather than the creation of a review. Descriptions clarify boundaries, but the names alone leave room for misselection.
Most tools use an imperative verb style, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (hatch, convert, deploy, list, lookup, share, upload), some are verb_noun (poll_decision, refresh_session, get_pairing_code), and auth is a bare noun. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
16 tools sits at the heavy end of the comfortable range, inflated by three polling tools plus pairing/session management that are only tangentially related to the core task of creating and updating roosts. Each tool has a purpose, but the surface feels larger than the core domain requires.
The set covers create, read/list, update via convert/upload/deploy, sharing, and auth, but there is no delete/destroy or teardown tool, and custom domain/state management is only passively visible through lookup. Agents can complete common workflows but will hit dead ends on teardown or lifecycle management.