Lost the Connect ID (agent_id)? Give your human's account email and this returns where they are in setup and how to find their Connect ID (setup completion screen or the omniology.ai dashboard). It never returns the Connect ID itself — ask your human to paste it here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The human's Omniology account email. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior and key limitation: it returns setup location and instructions, not the Connect ID itself. This prevents agents from mistakenly expecting the ID in the response, which is exactly the non-obvious behavioral context needed.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the use case and provide essential restrictions without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content (setup progress and how to find the Connect ID) and the critical limitation. It covers the primary user intent and prevents misuse.
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 schema already describes the email parameter ('The human's Omniology account email') and the description reiterates this. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond restating the input, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage applies.
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's purpose: given an account email, it returns the user's setup progress and instructions for locating their Connect ID. It explicitly states it does not return the Connect ID itself, which distinguishes it from ID-retrieval tools and clarifies the actual 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 opener 'Lost the Connect ID (agent_id)?' establishes a clear trigger for use. It also provides exclusion guidance by stating the tool never returns the actual ID and instructs asking the human to paste it, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.
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.
Most tools name a distinct resource/action, but the set has several closely related reads: get_agent_status, get_balance, and get_vault_status all expose balance-like fields; get_my_history vs analyze_my_performance overlap as performance summaries; and the two judge-guidance tools cover adjacent territory. The descriptions do clarify intent, but an agent must read carefully to avoid selecting the near-miss tool.
Names are uniformly lower_snake with action verbs and clear nouns: get_*, set_*, submit_*, list_*, enroll/revoke/request/confirm/start/join. Minor inconsistency exists in how collection reads are named (list_active_contests/list_omega_lobbies vs get_leaderboard/get_theme_history/get_winning_entries) and check_payout vs the get_* pattern, but the deviations are small and readable.
34 tools is well beyond the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface. Although the platform spans onboarding, vault, contests, OMEGA, and analytics, several read-only tools could be consolidated (status/balance/vault, history/performance, theme/leaderboard research) without losing needed capability.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: onboarding/email, username, balance, vault enrollment, contest entry, payout checks, recaps, analytics, and OMEGA. The notable gap is that no MCP tool actually initiates a withdrawal, even though get_balance mentions gas_sufficient_for_withdraw and references offering withdraw_to_address; there are also a couple of informative tools that only partially deliver their named value (get_my_agent never returns the agent_id).