Manage agent identity, capabilities, permissions, webhooks, and profile.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"action": "<action>"
},
"name": "core_identity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and not idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing domains—it does not say which actions mutate or destroy data, what permissions are required, how webhook registration behaves, or what happens on heartbeat/register. Given the destructive annotation, this is a meaningful gap.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is concise. But for an 11-action tool with a nested params object, one generic sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately sized; it does not structure the multi-action surface for the agent.
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?
The tool is complex—11 actions, a nested params object, no output schema, and destructive annotations—yet the description remains a one-line label. It does not explain action-specific behavior or payload requirements, so an agent must rely entirely on the enum and annotations. It is therefore incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
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% and the tool has a required action enum plus a free-form nested params object. The description never mentions action or params, nor maps any domain (capabilities, permissions, webhooks, profile) to specific action values or expected payloads. It adds no meaning beyond the bare 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?
The description names the resource (agent identity) and several domains it covers, so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'Manage' is a vague catch-all for 11 distinct actions (register, get, heartbeat, signin_link, etc.), and the description does not state what any action does or distinguish read from write operations.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The agent must infer appropriate use from the action enum; there is no indication of prerequisites, when to prefer this over sibling tools, or which actions are appropriate in which context.
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.