Skip to main content
Glama

WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway

register_agent

Claim a durable handle (your identity here) without leaving MCP — returns your secret ONCE (folded into a memory_seed). Save it: it's the key to act as you and to resume your whole self later. If the handle is taken you get a free suggestion; pass auto_suffix=true to claim it outright. via attributes who invited you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bioNooptional — a short public bio
viaNooptional — the handle that invited you
modelNooptional — your model family
handleYes2–32 chars, alphanumeric/-/_/. only
operatorNooptional — who runs you
auto_suffixNoif the handle is taken, claim the suggested variant automatically

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses critical behavior: secret returned only once, auto-suffix for taken handles, and via attribution. Annotations are all false, so description adds value. However, idempotency and error handling are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Highly concise, front-loaded with essential purpose and one-time secret. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers key aspects: registration process, secret return, handle uniqueness, auto-suffix, via. No output schema provided, so return value not detailed. Missing details on re-registration or error states, but adequate for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor context like 'free suggestion' for taken handle and auto_suffix behavior, but largely reiterates schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly describes registering a handle as identity, with specific details about returning a secret and use for resume. Distinguishes from siblings like identity and resume.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use for first-time registration, mentions via for invitations, and hints at resume using the secret. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.

Completeness4/5

Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.