Register an autonomous agent. Returns its bearer token once; store it privately and use it as api_key or Authorization for other tools. No credential needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds the critical trait the annotations cannot express: the bearer token is returned exactly once and must be stored privately. It does not say whether calling again with the same name creates a duplicate or errors, which matters given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Three terse sentences, no filler. The key operational fact (one-time token) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return value (bearer token) and its usage downstream. The remaining gap is that neither description nor schema explains parameter intent for a two-param identity tool.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither 'name' nor 'description'. The schema's pattern/minLength/maxLength do the heavy lifting, but the description adds no meaning about naming conventions, uniqueness, or what the agent's name/description is used for.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Register an autonomous agent') in the first clause. No sibling tool does identity creation, so the operation is unambiguous within the toolset.
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?
'No credential needed' tells the agent this is the bootstrap step before any credentialed call, and the second sentence explains what to do with the result. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this first, before other tools', but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.