Check whether a railto.me handle is free before register_agent. Returns available, and when false a reason plus up to 3 free suggestions. Ask the owner which handle they want before registering: it is permanent and public at https://railto.me/. Do not pick one yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Handle to check, for example mili |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds important behavioral context: it returns suggestions and emphasizes the permanent and public nature of the handle, which is not in the annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting anything.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional instructions about asking the owner are valuable and not redundant. It could be slightly more concise by merging sentences, but it's 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, high schema coverage), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, return values, usage constraints, and implications (permanence/publicness) that an agent needs to call it correctly and appropriately.
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% for the single parameter, so the schema already defines the handle. The description provides an example ('mili') but doesn't add substantial extra semantics beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.
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 checks handle availability and explicitly mentions the related register_agent tool, distinguishing its purpose from siblings. It also explains the return information (availability, reason, suggestions) which adds clarity.
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?
It explicitly says 'before register_agent' and instructs the agent to ask the owner which handle they want, not to pick one. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an exclusion (don't decide).
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.
