Register an agent with its unique name, description, capabilities, and HTTP callback endpoint to make it discoverable and available for task delegation.
Register an agent with its capabilities and HTTP callback endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Unique agent name | |
| endpoint | Yes | HTTP callback URL (e.g., http://host:port/task) | |
| description | Yes | What this agent does | |
| capabilities | Yes | List of capabilities |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Register' implies a state-changing action, but the description does not say whether registration is idempotent, whether an existing agent with the same name is overwritten or rejected, whether authorization is required, or what response is returned.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and specifies the key registration contents without extra padding. It is concise and every phrase is meaningful.
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?
For a simple four-parameter registration tool, the description plus full schema coverage is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, there is no guidance on duplicate handling, returned registration details, or prerequisites, so the description is not fully 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 all four parameters adequately. The description adds no details beyond what the schema provides; it only restates capabilities and endpoint at a high level.
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 names a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('an agent') and enriches it with the registration payload scope ('capabilities and HTTP callback endpoint'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like mesh_discover, mesh_unregister, and mesh_delegate.
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 description implies usage (register an agent into the mesh) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions and does not mention sibling alternatives. An agent can infer the operation from the verb, but the description does not state when this tool should be preferred over mesh_unregister or mesh_delegate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.