widespread

wide_agent_register

Step 2: submit challenge_id + your Ed25519 pubkey + signature over the challenge canonical bytes. Bridge verifies and registers a forge DID for your agent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "challenge_id": "<challenge_id>",
      "pubkey_hex": "<pubkey_hex>",
      "signature_hex": "<signature_hex>"
    },
    "name": "wide_agent_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No
`pubkey_hex`	Yes
`challenge_id`	Yes
`signature_hex`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile: not read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that, saying the bridge verifies the signature and produces a persistent DID, but omits failure behavior on invalid signatures and whether a repeat call creates a new DID or errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the action and payload front-loaded, no filler. Terms like 'forge DID' and 'challenge canonical bytes' are jargon-heavy but are plausibly domain-accurate rather than redundant.

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?

For a non-idempotent registration mutation with no output schema, the description should ideally cover the returned value and the treatment of the optional label. It explains the verification-and-registration mechanics well but leaves the response payload and one parameter undocumented.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain three of four parameters: challenge_id, an Ed25519 pubkey, and a signature over the challenge canonical bytes. It leaves the optional 'label' parameter completely unexplained and does not explicitly state the hex encoding used by the schema fields.

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?

The description names a specific action and outcome: it verifies a signature and registers a forge DID for the agent, which is distinct from a pure challenge or claim tool. The 'Step 2' prefix also separates it from the implied step-1 challenge flow, though the sibling tool is not named outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'Step 2' framing implies this must be called after obtaining a challenge, giving some workflow context. However, it never names the preceding tool, states prerequisites explicitly, or indicates when not to call it (e.g., re-registration of an already-registered agent).

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

All widespread tools Inspect

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.