Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

widespread

by io.github.TerexitariusStomp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wide_agent_challenge

Step 1 of registering an agent identity. Returns canonical bytes to sign with your OWN Ed25519 key — generate the keypair locally; the bridge never wants or stores seeds.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wide_agent_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare generic hints (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns canonical bytes rather than performing the registration, and the keypair must be generated locally because the bridge never stores seeds — a meaningful security constraint.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical security caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It adequately describes the return (canonical bytes) despite no output schema, but leaves the lone input parameter and the transition to the next step underspecified. For a simple one-param tool this is workable but incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single 'label' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent has no idea whether it is an identifier, a display name, or required for the challenge to be valid. This is the main gap in the definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: 'Step 1 of registering an agent identity' that 'Returns canonical bytes to sign'. The sequencing language implicitly distinguishes it from wide_agent_register, though it never names that sibling outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Framing it as 'Step 1' gives clear context for when to call it — before the registration step — and the signing instruction tells the agent what to do with the result. It stops short of naming the follow-up tool or stating any exclusion.

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

All widespread toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources