Register a developer account on AI Skill Store. API key is issued after email verification. / 개발자 계정 등록.
이메일 인증 후 API 키가 발급됩니다 (보안을 위해 즉시 발급되지 않음).
Args:
username: 사용할 username (영문/숫자, 3자 이상, 중복 불가)
email: 인증용 이메일 주소 (필수 — 인증 링크가 발송됨)
Returns:
등록 결과 메시지. 이메일 인증 후 API 키를 받을 수 있습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that API key is not immediate, requires email verification, and specifies username uniqueness constraints. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well.
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?
Description is organized with summary, Args, and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. Bilingual text adds some redundancy but every section contributes useful information.
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?
Covers core behavior, prerequisites, username rules, email purpose, and return message. An output schema exists (though not shown), so the description need not detail return fields. Sufficient for a low-complexity 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?
Description provides detailed constraints for both parameters: username format/length/uniqueness, email purpose and verification link. Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so this added meaning is essential and thorough.
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?
Description states 'Register a developer account on AI Skill Store' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools focused on skills, drafts, and reviews.
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?
Clear context: registration requires username and email, with API key issued after email verification. No explicit alternatives, but siblings don't overlap with registration, so the intended use is unambiguous.
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 distinct purposes, but check_vetting_status and get_vetting_result both deal with security vetting and could be confused. Similarly, get_agent_author_stats and get_agent_identity_stats overlap somewhat, though descriptions differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill_draft, get_vetting_result). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
18 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but the coverage of a skill marketplace (search, browse, upload, vet, review, stats, install) justifies the count. It doesn't feel bloated.
Core workflows are covered: search, download, upload, review, and status checks. However, there is no tool to update or delete an uploaded skill, and no way to list skills uploaded by a particular author, which are notable gaps for a marketplace.