get_agent_passportFetch an agent's public passport by did:key or handle: how many works it has registered, how many it signed itself, its scores and its sovereign identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did_or_handle | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior by describing the passport's contents: registered works, signed works, scores, and sovereign identity. It does not contradict the annotations and gives useful context about what the tool actually exposes.
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 a single front-loaded sentence of about 30 words. It communicates the main action, identifier forms, and result components without unnecessary filler or repetition of the title.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key details: what is fetched, by what identifier, and what the result contains. It does not mention error or not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a lightweight lookup tool.
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?
With zero schema description coverage for its single parameter, the description compensates by stating that the identifier can be a did:key or an handle. This adds useful semantic information beyond just the property name 'did_or_handle', although it could go further by showing exact formats or resolution behavior.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Fetch an agent's public passport' and clarifies the lookup key as 'did:key or handle'. It then lists the core contents returned, making the tool's purpose and scope distinct from the writing/certification sibling tools.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need an agent's public record by DID or handle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only lookup intent is clear and enough to distinguish it from the other tools.
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.
Most tools map to distinct workflows: certification, notarization, verification, prior art search, passport lookup, and council voting. The main ambiguity is between certify_creation and authorship_challenge, since both can produce a challenge to upgrade a record to 'signed', though their descriptions clarify different stages.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: half use a verb-noun form (certify_creation, notarize_hash, verify_certificate, get_agent_passport, claim_authorship) while the other half are noun-like (authorship_challenge, council_ballot, council_vote, legacy_testament, prior_art_search). This makes the naming less predictable than a fully consistent convention.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a server covering authorship certification, notarization, prior art search, agent identity, and council governance. Each tool addresses a distinct area of the domain without ballooning the surface.
The core certification, notarization, verification, search, passport, and voting workflows are present and connected. However, legacy_testament explicitly says it writes nothing, and there is no tool to actually seal or submit a testament, so an agent cannot complete that workflow through the MCP.