Trigger Scan
Scan domains for A2A Agent Card discovery.
Checks the given domains for /.well-known/agent.json endpoints and extracts agent capability metadata. Results are stored and can be retrieved via the scan results endpoint.
202: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool performs a network scan, extracts metadata, and stores results. It also mentions the 202 response, suggesting asynchronous acceptance. It lacks details on side effects or auth, but the stored-results behavior and endpoint check are transparent enough for a trigger tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a brief explanation and a response section. Every sentence adds value, but the response section is minimal and could be integrated more neatly. Overall, it is well-structured and not bloated.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and storage behavior. However, it omits details about asynchronous execution (implied by 202 but not stated) and what the response body contains. This leaves the agent uncertain about the immediate return value and follow-up sequence, so completeness is moderate.
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 has one parameter 'domains' with 0% coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that domains are checked for /.well-known/agent.json, implying each string is a base domain. However, it does not specify domain format (e.g., with or without scheme, trailing slash), leaving some ambiguity.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Scan domains for A2A Agent Card discovery," and elaborates by checking for /.well-known/agent.json and extracting capability metadata. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like trigger_discovery_cycle and get_scan_results by stating it operates on given domains and stores results.
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 implies usage context by stating it scans domains and that results can be retrieved later via the scan results endpoint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like trigger_discovery_cycle or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
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 clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.