Create a key. Returns a bearer key shown ONCE — store it; it is your only identity. No email, no account. Starts on the free tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | 1-64 chars, lowercase alnum plus - and _. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so exceptionally well. It discloses that the bearer key is shown exactly once, must be stored, is the sole identity, and that there is no email/account recovery mechanism. It also states the free-tier starting state, giving the agent important operational context beyond the simple 'create' action.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, then each short sentence adds valuable behavioral detail. There is no filler, and the urgent 'shown ONCE — store it' instruction is placed immediately after the main verb.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: why to call it, what it returns, and important caveats about storage and account recovery. It does not detail the response format or field names, but given the tool's simplicity, the missing pieces are minor rather than critical.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including format constraints for 'handle'. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning about how 'handle' relates to the generated key, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Create a key' and immediately clarifies the resource's role as an identity ('your only identity'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling set by focusing on registration and key issuance, and the one-time display rule makes the purpose unmistakable.
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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need a new bearer key/identity, and it emphasizes there is no email or account recovery, implying this is the entry point for onboarding. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a register tool the context is strong enough that an agent would not confuse it with a lease, watchdog, or revocation tool.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains—receipts/notarization, leases, journals, watchdogs, and account management—and each tool has a distinct resource or action. Minor confusion is possible between vigil_anchor and vigil_anchors, or between the various verification tools, but the descriptions generally make the boundaries clear.
All tools share the vigil_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: vigil_get_receipt and vigil_delete_watchdog use verb-first, while vigil_journal_get and vigil_journal_delete use resource-first. Several tools are also pure nouns (vigil_chain, vigil_usage, vigil_lease_status), making the overall pattern mixed but still readable.
At 26 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even though the tools cluster into several subsystems. Some status, info, and lease-listing tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing much capability.
The core lifecycle coverage is strong: receipts can be created, read, verified, and audited via the chain; leases have grant/renew/revoke/status/verify; journals have full CRUD; watchdogs have set/delete/status/heartbeat. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to update a watchdog without deleting and recreating it, but these are workable.