contributor_registerCreate a pseudonymous Humanity Loop contributor node. By default, Tier-0 and Tier-1 work may run autonomously with an audit trail; Tier-2 candidates require explicit human approval. Returns a private node token shown once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| No | |||
| languages | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| risk_permissions | No | ||
| user_agent_label | No | ||
| allow_tier1_review | No | ||
| setup_email_consent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / risk_permissionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "tier0",
+ "tier1-auto",
+ "tier2-review"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses pseudonymity, default tier autonomy with audit trail, Tier-2 human approval, and a one-time private node token. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency, error behavior, and side effects beyond token issuance.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by important behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return token and some tier behavior, but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics or auth prerequisites required for a registration 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. Critical fields like risk_permissions (with its tier enum), allow_tier1_review, and setup_email_consent are left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to rely solely on raw JSON 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('pseudonymous Humanity Loop contributor node'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like contributor_checkin or contributor_submit, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to distinguish it.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or required conditions mentioned. The description implies registration but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context relative to sibling contributor 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.