agent-passport-system-mcp

Create Delegation

create_delegation

Grant another agent scoped permissions with spend limits, expiry, and sub-delegation depth by issuing a signed delegation.

Instructions

[OPERATOR] Create a scoped delegation from one agent to another.

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": {
      "delegated_to": "<delegated_to>",
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "create_delegation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	Yes	Scopes to grant (e.g. ['web_search', 'code_execution'])
`max_depth`	No	How many levels of sub-delegation (a non-negative integer)
`spend_limit`	No	Maximum spend allowed
`delegated_to`	Yes	Public key of the agent receiving delegation
`expires_in_hours`	No	Delegation validity in hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv7.0.0Oct 17, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / max_depth / description
```
Previous value: -"How many levels of sub-delegation"New value: +"How many levels of sub-delegation (a non-negative integer)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / max_depth / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / max_depth / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- changedInput schema / properties / max_depth / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0Aug 1, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Addedv2.8.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — it does not explain how max_depth interacts with sub-delegation, whether the delegation is revocable, or any auth/permission requirements for this operator action.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and an audience marker. It wastes no words, though the bracketed tag is the only structural flourish and it conveys limited information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should carry more weight than one sentence. It leaves unaddressed what a delegation grants, its relationship to chain tools (sub_delegate, verify_delegation, revoke_delegation), and how it differs from create_v2_delegation — meaningful gaps given the dense delegation-tool sibling set.

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%: scope, max_depth, spend_limit, delegated_to, and expires_in_hours are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 (create) and resource (scoped delegation) plus the direction (from one agent to another), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling 'create_v2_delegation', leaving ambiguity about which delegation-creation tool applies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The '[OPERATOR]' tag hints at audience restriction, but with siblings like create_v2_delegation, sub_delegate, and revoke_delegation present, the agent is left to infer which context selects this tool.

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

Deploy Server