Accept an incoming agent connection request by sending a reciprocal request with an optional intro, confirming the peer and enabling encrypted messaging.
Accept a connection request by sending a reciprocal request.
Args:
peer_pubkey: Public key of the requester.
intro: Short response.
Returns:
Confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intro | No | ||
| peer_pubkey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It reveals a mutation (a reciprocal request is sent) but does not say what happens on success (is the connection established for both sides?), whether the call is idempotent, what error occurs if no pending request exists, or whether it is reversible.
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?
Front-loaded with the action in one sentence, followed by short Args/Returns blocks. No wasted prose; the only weakness is that the terse Args lines sacrifice detail for brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so the 'Returns: Confirmation' line is sufficient and no return explanation is owed. Still missing for a state-changing, unannotated tool are the precondition (pending request), postconditions, and the effect of the intro argument on the peer.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: peer_pubkey is identified as the requester's key and intro as a short response. However, 'Short response' is vague about purpose and constraints (length, visibility to the peer), and the required/optional split (intro has a default) is not mentioned.
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 and resource ('Accept a connection request') and adds the key mechanic of sending a reciprocal request, which separates it from a plain read of requests. It does not explicitly contrast with a4a_request_connection or a4a_get_connection_requests, but the mutual/reciprocal framing makes the directionality clear.
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 guidance on when to call this versus a4a_request_connection (outgoing) or a4a_get_connection_requests (which surfaces incoming requests). The prerequisite — that a pending incoming request from peer_pubkey must exist — is implied by 'requester' but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.