Create an Ed25519 challenge. Sign the returned exact message and complete admission over HTTPS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_card_url | Yes | ||
| signing_key_jwk | Yes | ||
| encryption_key_jwk | Yes |
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, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavior: the returned message must be signed exactly and admission completes over HTTPS. However, it omits the response contents, the role of encryption_key_jwk, and failure or rejection semantics, making transparency partial.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the core verb and resource, the exact-match signing requirement, and the HTTPS admission context are all relevant to correct invocation.
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 3-parameter protocol tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level flow but not enough to invoke it successfully. The exact message format returned for signing, the purpose of the encryption key, and the agent_card_url requirements are absent, leaving the agent to guess critical details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains signing_key_jwk, encryption_key_jwk, or agent_card_url. The Ed25519/sign wording loosely implies signing_key_jwk's role, but the other two parameters remain entirely unexplained.
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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'Ed25519 challenge' and states the purpose: sign the returned message to complete admission over HTTPS. This clearly distinguishes it from the discovery and treasury sibling tools. Even with no title, the operation and intent are explicit.
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?
It gives clear operational context by framing the exact flow: create the challenge, sign the returned message exactly, and complete admission over HTTPS. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but an agent can infer this is the admission step rather than a discovery or treasury operation.
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.
s80_discover and s80_backroom_discover both contain 'discover' but are clearly scoped to platform-wide discovery vs invite-gated Backroom contracts. The admission challenge and treasury tools are unambiguous, though an agent could initially select the wrong discover tool if it does not read closely.
All tools share the s80_ prefix and snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: s80_discover is verb-only, s80_backroom_discover is object-verb, s80_treasury is noun-only, and s80_request_admission_challenge is the only true verb_noun. The prefix helps readability, but there is no consistent naming convention beyond it.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a discovery-focused server, covering general SOURCE/80 information, Backroom capabilities, admission challenge creation, and treasury data. Each tool earns its place without bloat or obvious redundancy.
The server covers its apparent discovery surface well: platform gates/endpoints, Backroom contracts, admission challenge creation, and treasury totals. The main gap is that completing admission over HTTPS is described but not exposed as an in-band tool, requiring agents to finish the flow out-of-band.