Agents-Core

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Register cooperation scope

cooperation_register

Register an execution in the optional installation daemon's cooperation journal to record task, attempt, and Git identity metadata for coordination.

Instructions

The private returned capability must remain in its authorized session channel;
never include it in logs, artifacts or peer messages. Registration observes
Git identities and records metadata; it does not spawn, edit or send messages.
Owner registration must already permit the physical checkout. Parent-relay
mode is the fallback when the host has no safe independent capability channel.
Read agents-core://cooperation/schema for all request and action contracts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Closed agents-core/cooperation/1 registration object or raw JSON. Required: protocol, checkout_path (absolute physical checkout), root_task_id, task_id, attempt_id, scope (1..50 resources with resource_type, resource_key, access). Optional contract_revision, parent_id and parent_capability, role, communication_mode (mcp/native/parent_relay/checkpoint; default mcp), artifact_access, execution_mode (independent/parent_relay). Maximum 32768 UTF-8 bytes, depth 8; no unknown fields or duplicate keys.
`workspace`	No	Absolute path of your working directory, the project this session works in. Pass it whenever you have one: one server can serve several sessions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv26.10.16Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by warning that the returned private capability must stay in its authorized session channel and never appear in logs/artifacts/peer messages, and by clarifying it only observes Git identities and records metadata. It does not disclose failure or rate behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a safety constraint, a scope statement, a prerequisite and a mode rule, each in its own sentence with no filler. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation tool with a nested request object and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the fallback mode, the side-effect boundary and the sensitivity of the returned capability, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The pointer to agents-core://cooperation/schema for full contracts is a sensible hand-off.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the request object, its required fields, the 1..50 resource scope and the size/depth limits. The description adds only the parent_relay fallback nuance, which the schema already lists as a communication_mode/execution_mode value, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: registering an execution in the cooperation journal, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by denying spawning, editing and message-sending. The phrasing is jargon-heavy ('optional installation daemon's cooperation journal'), which slightly obscures the mental model, but an agent can still tell it apart from cooperation_send/cooperation_apply.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a prerequisite ('Owner registration must already permit the physical checkout') and a mode-selection rule ('Parent-relay mode is the fallback when the host has no safe independent capability channel'), plus implicit differentiation via the 'does not spawn, edit or send' clause. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over cooperation_apply or cooperation_read.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server