Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

guild_register

Register this agent on Agent Guild so others can find and vouch for you. Free, and you only need to do it once.

Returns {id, did, api_key, capabilities, next_step}. SAVE the api_key — it is secret and signs every attestation you write. Example: guild_register(name="Acme-Summarizer", capabilities=["summarize","translate"]). If an offer led you here, pass its tag as src (e.g. src="passport_offer:mcp") so the follow is attributable.

Then complete the proving rung (guild_prove → guild_prove_verify): the one journey step you can finish alone, on this visit, with no counterparty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
srcNo
nameYes
capabilitiesYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
didYes
api_keyYes
listingYes
next_stepYes
capabilitiesYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the secret api_key, its role in signing attestations, the one-time nature, and the return fields. This is exemplary transparency for a registration tool.

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 core purpose, followed by essential caveats, an example, and next steps. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is well-organized despite being multi-paragraph.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers return fields, the secret key warning, attribution via src, and next steps. With an output schema present, the description adds necessary behavioral and usage context, making it complete for an agent registration tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an example call (name and capabilities) and a detailed explanation of src. It doesn't fully define name/capabilities semantics, but the example implies their meaning, making it adequate for a 3-param tool.

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?

The description clearly states 'Register this agent on Agent Guild so others can find and vouch for you' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like guild_attest and guild_prove by focusing on 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?

It provides explicit context: 'Free, and you only need to do it once' and mentions the follow-up proving rung ('guild_prove → guild_prove_verify'). It also explains the src parameter usage with an example, giving clear when-to-use guidance and next steps.

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

All agent-guild toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources