Return OpenID Connect discovery metadata: issuer, authorization and token endpoints, JWKS URI, grants, scopes, PKCE, and signing algorithms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It clearly lists the output contents, which implies a read-only metadata operation, but it does not explicitly state that this is a safe GET with no side effects, nor does it mention any authentication requirements or failure modes. For a simple metadata fetch, the description is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 a single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of specific metadata elements. There is no redundant wording, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values are already structured. The description enumerates the standard OpenID Connect discovery fields (issuer, endpoints, JWKS URI, grants, scopes, PKCE, signing algorithms), which is complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool. No additional contextual information is needed for this straightforward operation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for zero-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning because none is needed. The focus on the returned metadata is appropriate and does not conflict with the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'OpenID Connect discovery metadata', followed by an explicit enumeration of the included fields (issuer, authorization and token endpoints, JWKS URI, grants, scopes, PKCE, signing algorithms). This distinguishes it from siblings like hodlxxi_get_jwks, which returns actual JWKS values, and hodlxxi_get_oauth_authorization_server, which covers OAuth-specific metadata.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but it does not mention that hodlxxi_get_jwks provides the actual key material or that other sibling tools may overlap in scope. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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 are clearly distinct, targeting specific documents or endpoints (e.g., identity, capabilities, JWKS, receipts). However, some overlap exists among discovery-related tools (e.g., get_agent_discovery, get_agent_identity, get_capabilities, get_marketplace_listing) that could cause confusion about which to use for a given purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'hodlxxi_get_' or 'hodlxxi_verify_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase. The verbs are consistent (get/verify) and the nouns are specific, making the naming predictable and uniform.
With 26 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable for a read-only server that exposes a wide array of public documents and metadata. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, so the count is justified, though it borders on heavy.
The server covers a comprehensive set of read-only operations for its domain: identity, capabilities, skills, receipts, trust events, OAuth/OIDC metadata, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all covenants or reports (only get by identifier), but the core surface is well-covered.