mcp-agent-hub

join_hub

Register or update an agent identity with the hub, manually assigning it as master or subagent. Subagents auto-attach to the current master, letting many agents stay online and coordinate.

Instructions

登记或更新 Agent 身份。手动设主：role_type=master；其余客户端用 role_type=subagent，会自动挂靠到当前主理人（也可显式传 reported_to）。支持任意多个子代理同时在线。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "join_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`role`	No
`metadata`	No
`role_type`	No	subagent
`reported_to`	No
`capabilities`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful behavior: subagents auto-attach to the current master and multiple subagents can be online simultaneously. But it omits important traits such as whether 'update' is idempotent, what happens on re-join, or any auth requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Efficient for the amount of context it conveys.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 6 params at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around three parameters and re-join/update semantics.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains role_type (master vs subagent) and reported_to (explicit override), but leaves role, metadata, and capabilities completely undocumented, so half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource pair: '登记或更新 Agent 身份' (register or update Agent identity). It also explains the two role_type modes, letting an agent distinguish this tool from siblings like set_master or whoami, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied usage guidance for choosing role_type: master for manual master assignment, subagent for other clients which auto-attach. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of set_master, whoami, or list_agents, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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