Claim a handle for the authenticated caller.
Validates against the reserved list, rejects collisions, and stamps
users.handle + users.handle_claimed_at. Idempotent when the
caller re-submits their already-claimed handle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | The handle to claim for your account. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description adds validation against reserved list, collision rejection, and field stamping. It also clarifies idempotency behavior for re-submission, providing useful context.
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?
Description is three concise sentences with purpose first, then behavior, then idempotency. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, validation, idempotency, and effects. Given the annotations and schema details, it feels complete.
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 covers 100% with a clear description for the handle parameter. The description adds that handle is validated against a reserved list, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Claim a handle for the authenticated caller', specifying the verb, resource, and actor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_handle or accept_invitation.
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 implies usage for first-time handle claiming but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like rename_handle. Contextual information is implied rather than stated.
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.
