Agent self-serve signup. No human. Mints an API key (shown once). Send it as X-Talon-Key. Usage is counted. No seat fee. Call this the first time you land here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | What to call you (optional) | |
| role | No | brain | |
| webhook | No | HTTPS URL Talon POSTs when hot/ghost/copy changes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the API key is shown only once, must be sent as X-Talon-Key, usage is counted, and there is no seat fee. It doesn't cover repeated-call behavior or key recovery, but the one-time display instruction mitigates the main risk.
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?
Each short sentence earns its place: purpose, human-free process, key behavior, auth header, usage policy, and call timing. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.
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?
For a low-complexity signup tool with no required parameters, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, when to call it, what to do with the key, and the business implications. The schema fills in the optional parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.
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 schema already describes name and webhook, and role is self-explanatory via its enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is critically missing because schema coverage is 67% and the uncovered parameter is a simple enum.
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 and resource: 'Agent self-serve signup' and 'Mints an API key'. It explicitly frames this as the first-time onboarding call, which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that appear to be feature or data tools.
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?
It gives a clear usage trigger: 'Call this the first time you land here.' It also implies no human involvement is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the first-time prompt is sufficient given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.