Cyphrex

register_agent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`description`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

removedInput schema / properties / apiKey

Removed value: -{
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "type",
-  "description",
-  "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "type",
+  "description"
+]

First observedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, return behavior). The description only restates the registration action, offering zero additional context about what happens when an agent is registered.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single, short sentence that reads easily, but it is under-specified. It provides only the bare minimum, similar to a stub, and lacks sufficient detail to be considered effectively concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration in the description, the context is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine what registering an agent entails, what the response looks like, or what side effects occur.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema defines three required parameters (name, type, description) with no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not explain their meanings, constraints, or relationships. With 0% schema description coverage, this omission is critical and the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the action (register) and the resource (a new Cyphrex agent), giving a specific verb-and-resource combination. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like verify_agent, but the verb 'register' naturally implies creation, making the purpose clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer context without any supporting information.

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

All Cyphrex tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: checking proposed actions, logging/reading audit data, proxying requests, registering/verifying agents, scanning different payload types, and setting profiles. The separation between check_action and scan_mcp_tool_result is clear from their descriptions (proposed action vs. upstream result).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_action, get_audit_log, set_behavior_profile). No mixing of styles or vague verbs beyond standard operation names.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a security-focused MCP governance server. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or excessive granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: agent registration, verification, behavior profiling, action checking/logging, audit retrieval, proxying, and scanning. Minor gaps include no explicit agent removal or policy management tools, but these may be intentionally outside the server's scope.

Resources

Need Help?