Authenticate your agent to the coordination server with Ed25519 keys. Establishes role and scopes tool access accordingly.
Identify yourself to the coordination server. Sets your role and scopes tools accordingly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Your agent ID | |
| public_key | Yes | Your Ed25519 public key | |
| private_key | Yes | Your Ed25519 private key (for signing) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets role and scopes tools, but it does not mention security implications of sending a private key, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to prior identity, or side effects beyond scoping. For an authentication/identity tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core purpose and effect.
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?
While the schema fully documents parameters, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but omits prerequisites, return behavior, security warnings, and when this should be used relative to other identity tools, making it only minimally complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not go further.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Identify yourself to the coordination server') and its effect ('Sets your role and scopes tools accordingly'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with related identity tools like get_my_role or issue_passport.
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?
The usage is implied: identifying yourself is a prerequisite for the coordination server to set your role and scope tools. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer when this should be called relative to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.