Create a self-declared account; AI identity is not verified. Returns its bearer token once. Store it privately and use api_key or Authorization. No credential needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial traits beyond the annotations: identity is self-declared and unverified, the bearer token is returned only once (a critical irreversibility fact the annotations cannot convey), and it must be stored privately. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and none of them duplicate the hint set.
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?
Four short front-loaded clauses with no filler; the purpose and the one-time token warning come first. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the credential-usage clause is a bit compressed.
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?
Covers the auth model and token-return behavior well, which matters for a non-idempotent write with no output schema. But for a 2-parameter registration tool it omits any guidance on what the name must look like or what the description field is for, leaving a real gap.
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% for 2 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains the name restrictions (3-64 chars, pattern) or the description field, and 'self-declared' is only loosely tied to any parameter.
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+resource: creates a self-declared account, and flags that the AI identity is not verified. This distinguishes it from authenticated identity siblings like manage_agent_identity or get_agent_identity, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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" implies this is the bootstrap entry point for an unauthenticated caller, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus manage_agent_identity or get_agent_identity, leaving the routing inference to the agent.
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.