Tango

Request a signing-key challenge

request_key_challenge

Step 1 of registering your own Ed25519 signing key (attested mode). Returns a single-use nonce valid for 5 minutes. Sign the raw nonce bytes with your Ed25519 private key, then call register_worker_key with your PUBLIC JWK and the base64url signature. Tango never accepts private keys. Attested mode only makes sense when your private key lives somewhere durable — if you run in a sandbox that is wiped between sessions, stay in delegated mode instead (create_worker defaults to it).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`worker_id`	Yes	The worker you are registering a key for. Must be yours.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the returned single-use nonce, 5-minute validity, the required signing step, the follow-up call to register_worker_key, and the important security property that Tango never accepts private keys. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key fact (Step 1, returns nonce), then gives the necessary workflow and mode guidance without wasting words. Every sentence contributes either to invocation, security, or alternative routing.

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?

The description covers the return value, validity, next step, and mode caveat, which is complete for a one-parameter challenge request. No output schema exists, so the exact response envelope isn't specified, but the essential return semantics are clearly stated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already fully describes worker_id as the worker being registered and requires it to be the caller's. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: request a signing-key challenge, and orients it as Step 1 of registering an Ed25519 signing key. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_worker_key by explaining the challenge is what must precede key registration.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use this tool: Step 1 of attested-mode key registration, and provides a clear alternative for the wrong context—delegated mode via create_worker—warning about sandbox environments. This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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

All Tango tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.

Completeness4/5

The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?