agentshield-mcp

set_agent_name

Set a custom display name for your AI agent on the security leaderboard using your API key.

Instructions

Set your display name on the leaderboard. Requires API key.

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>",
      "api_key": "<api_key>"
    },
    "name": "set_agent_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Display name (max 32 chars)
`api_key`	Yes	Your API key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the API key requirement already in the schema and doesn't explain side effects (e.g., whether the name overwrites the previous one, is reversible, or returns confirmation). This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words. It earns a high score.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify what the operation does beyond just setting the name. It provides the core purpose and requirement, but lacks details on outcomes or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (name and api_key), including the max character limit. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('display name on the leaderboard'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_leaderboard, which are read-only. The description is unambiguous and specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the use case (when you need to change your display name) and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. Context is clear, so a 4 is appropriate.

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