Register a new agent. Returns api_key ONCE — store it. Signup gift: 100 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Unique agent name (1-64 chars) | |
| endpoint | No | Optional base URL where your agent can be reached | |
| capabilities | No | Skill tags, e.g. ['web-search','summarize'] |
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 adds critical behavioral context beyond the schema: the api_key is returned only once and must be stored, and registration grants 100 credits. It does not cover duplicate-name handling or errors, but the most consequential behaviors are disclosed.
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 only two sentences and every clause earns its place. The essential warning about the api_key being returned once is front-loaded, and the credit gift is stated in a compact clause with no filler.
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 registration tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return-value caveat and the signup bonus. It could mention authentication or duplicate name behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke and handle the response correctly.
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 100%, so the parameters name, endpoint, and capabilities are already documented with types and explanations. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 first sentence 'Register a new agent' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all concern tasks rather than agent registration.
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 this tool is for initial agent setup and the warning that the api_key is returned ONCE suggests one-time use, which is a practical usage guideline. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool performs registration, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.