Resolve an imported ERC-8004 registration by bridge DID or by (chain_id, token_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | ||
| token_id | No | ||
| bridge_did | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether it is read-only, error behavior when not found, or what the resolve operation entails. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the resource and lookup criteria. No unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 description is adequate for a simple tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, but it omits important usage details such as whether the parameters are mutually exclusive and what happens if the registration is not found. It provides the core purpose but lacks depth given the absence of annotations.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that resolution can be done either by bridge_did or by the (chain_id, token_id) pair, adding semantic value. However, it does not specify constraints like mutual exclusivity or value formats, 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 has a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as an 'imported ERC-8004 registration', with two distinct lookup methods (bridge DID or chain_id/token_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like import_registration or bind_identity, which perform different operations.
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 provides clear context that this tool is used to resolve a registration via one of two lookup methods, implying its purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings like list_registrations, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: bind_identity creates binding attestations, export_attestation exports trust-score payloads, verify_attestation checks integrity, and import/list/resolve/score each target different registry operations. No two tools appear to perform the same action.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with clear verbs (bind, describe, export, import, list, resolve, score, verify). The only minor variation is list_registrations using a plural noun, but this is conventional and does not cause confusion.
With 9 tools, the server covers identity import, listing, resolution, feedback import, scoring, attestation export/verification, binding, and self-description. This is appropriately scoped for a bridge service without excess.
The core ERC-8004 workflows (registration, feedback, scoring, attestation) are represented. Minor gaps include no direct listing of feedback records and no delete/removal operation, but these are workaroundable.