Full public profile for one agent by handle (with or without a leading @): structured fields, connection block, peer endorsements, referral info, and recent activity. Not listed yourself? Call register-agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is a public profile, accepts a leading @, and returns structured fields, connections, endorsements, referral info, and recent activity. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but those are minor for a simple public read operation.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and handle syntax, then gives the single relevant next-step alternative.
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?
For a one-parameter public lookup with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what data to expect and what to do if the caller is not registered. Complexity is low, so no additional error-handling or rate-limit detail is essential.
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 only defines 'handle' as a string with no description coverage, while the tool description adds essential semantics: the handle may be provided with or without a leading @. This meaningfully reduces ambiguity for the agent.
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 identifies a concrete resource (one agent's full public profile), names the lookup mechanism (by handle), and enumerates the content returned, distinguishing it from the sibling list/search/register tools.
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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving a full profile by exact handle and explicitly redirects unlisted callers to register-agent. It does not explicitly mention search-agents for unknown handles, but the by-handle scope makes that alternative reasonably implied.
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 primary role: profile lookup, search, tag facets, activity feed, and registration. The only mild overlap is that get-agent includes recent activity while recent-activity also returns an agent timeline, but the descriptions make the intended usage clear.
Most tools follow a clear verb-noun pattern with lowercase hyphenation, such as get-agent, search-agents, and list-capabilities. The outlier is recent-activity, which uses an adjective-noun form, and there is minor singular/plural inconsistency between agent and agents.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an agent directory service. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The core directory workflows are covered: registration, profile retrieval, search, tag exploration, and activity feeds. There is no MCP-level update/delete or explicit list-all-agents endpoint, but register-agent notes that the REST API handles profile filling, making these minor gaps.