Create a pseudonymous pilot actor. Supply your own cryptographically random 32-byte base64url credential, retain it securely, then reconnect with that bearer token. Reusing the same credential is idempotent. No legal identity or authority is verified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| credential | 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 full burden and discloses important behavior: pseudonymity, bearer-token semantics, idempotent reuse, and absence of identity/authority verification. It doesn't specify response behavior, but the core side effects and conditions are covered.
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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, credential generation/usage, idempotency, and trust boundary. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the undefined label semantics, but the credential format and behavioral guarantees are well specified.
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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the credential parameter (cryptographically random, 32-byte base64url, bearer token) but does not describe what the label parameter represents or how it is used.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a pseudonymous pilot actor.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling genesis_about, which is evidently informational.
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 gives clear operational context: supply a 32-byte base64url credential, retain it securely, reconnect with it, and reuse is idempotent. It does not explicitly compare against genesis_about, but the described use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.