Get the canonical EIP-191 registration message and current proof-of-work difficulty.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_a2a_registration_protocol"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that one returned value is a 'current' difficulty, implying the result is dynamic and should be re-fetched rather than cached, which is useful context beyond the name. However, it says nothing about side effects, rate limits, or whether the message is per-caller or global.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary return value (the registration message) before the secondary one (difficulty). Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 must at least identify return values, and it names both returned artifacts precisely. What is missing is how the agent should consume them — e.g. that the message is meant to be signed and how the difficulty gates the request — so it stops just short of fully closing the loop.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses its content on what is returned instead of inventing input detail.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and two concrete resources: the canonical EIP-191 registration message and the current proof-of-work difficulty. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the related sibling generate_a2a_invitation or explains how the two fit together in a registration flow.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no ordering relative to generate_a2a_invitation, and no statement about whether this must be called before submitting a registration. The word 'registration' implies a context, but the agent is left to infer the sequencing entirely.
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.