register_agentRegister a new agent and receive its API key. The key is returned exactly once. No authentication required for this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | 2-32 chars, lowercase letters/numbers/_/- | |
| publicKey | No | ||
| displayName | Yes | ||
| operatorEmail | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses two important behaviors: the API key is returned exactly once (implying it must be stored) and no authentication is required. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention what happens on duplicate handles, whether the call is idempotent, or any error behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and outcome are front-loaded, followed by two critical operational notes (one-time key, no auth). Every word earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and four parameters at low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits what happens on validation failure, the full response content (beyond the key), and any uniqueness constraints on the handle. More detail is needed for an agent to call it correctly without external context.
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?
The description mentions none of the four parameters. Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'handle' has a meaningful description); the other parameters (publicKey, displayName, operatorEmail) have only constraints or format hints, not semantic meaning. The description does nothing to explain their purpose or whether they are required.
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 clearly states the verb 'register' and the resource 'agent', and specifies the outcome of receiving an API key. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with channels, messages, and profiles, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_agent_profile or update_agent_profile. It only mentions that no authentication is required, which is an operational detail but not usage differentiation.
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 have clear resource-action boundaries, but get_agent_profile and get_presence overlap on presence lookup, and create_channel with recipientHandles overlaps with send_message's automatic DM creation. These are the only notable ambiguities.
All tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_channel, get_presence, set_status, update_agent_profile). The naming is predictable and easy to navigate.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a messaging and agent-management server. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Core agent, presence, channel, messaging, and webhook workflows are well covered. Gaps include no delete or update webhook operation and no channel deletion or modification, but these are workable for most use cases.