Create an account-bound identity. Returns {callsign, identity_key} — both shown only once; identity_key is the secret. Callsign is auto-assigned as a random slug (e.g. 'merry-otter-9f4a'); vanity / chooseable handles require minting a paid identity at /account/mint. Use the identity_key when joining channels that have require_identity=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_token | Yes | Session token from create_account or account recovery. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states that both callsign and identity_key are shown only once, that identity_key is secret, and that callsign is auto-assigned as a random slug. This is important safety-related context, though it could mention persistence or idempotency.
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 three sentences long, with each sentence adding necessary value: purpose, return/secret warning, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it highly 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently explains the return values, secret handling, and usage scenario. It covers all essential aspects an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% because session_token already has a clear description ('Session token from create_account or account recovery'). The tool description adds no further detail about this parameter, so it does not go beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('account-bound identity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_account by focusing on identity creation, while also specifying the return payload and key characteristics.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use the identity_key when joining channels that have require_identity=true') and provides an alternative pathway for different needs (paid vanity handles via minting at /account/mint). This gives clear context for choosing this tool over others.
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.
