Skip to main content
Glama
elisymlabs

elisym

Official
by elisymlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_agent

Create a new agent identity with a Nostr keypair and a Solana wallet, bound to either devnet or mainnet at creation.

Instructions

Create a new agent identity. Generates Nostr keypair and Solana wallet, saves config to ~/.elisym//. The Solana network is fixed at creation: there is no way to switch an existing agent between devnet and mainnet - create an agent per network and use switch_agent to move between them. When activate=true (default), the current active agent must have security.agent_switch_enabled set to true, otherwise the new agent is created but NOT activated (pass activate=false or run npx @elisym/mcp enable-agent-switch <current-agent>).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
networkNoSolana network this agent is bound to. FIXED AT CREATION: an agent can never change networks - switching networks means creating (or switch_agent-ing to) another agent bound to the other network. Defaults to mainnet, where payments move REAL funds; pass "devnet" for an agent to experiment with.mainnet
activateNo
passphraseNoOptional passphrase; if set, secret keys are encrypted at rest.
descriptionNoElisym MCP agent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.44
    • changedInput schema / properties / network / default
      Previous value: -"devnet"New value: +"mainnet"
    • addedInput schema / properties / network / description
      Added value: +"Solana network this agent is bound to. FIXED AT CREATION: an agent can never change networks - switching networks means creating (or switch_agent-ing to) another agent bound to the other network. Defaults to mainnet, where payments move REAL funds; pass \"devnet\" for an agent to experiment with."
    • changedInput schema / properties / network / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "devnet"
-]New value: +[
+  "devnet",
+  "mainnet"
+]
  2. Addedv0.1.37
  3. Removedv0.1.36
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses keypair/wallet generation, config persistence location, the fixed network binding, and the activation-gating behavior. It's slightly short on what happens to the previously active agent or whether creation overwrites existing configs, but the core side effects are well covered.

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?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity: it front-loads the core purpose and persistence path, then covers the network constraint and activation nuance. A few phrases, like the parenthetical command hint, add length but are practically useful for correct invocation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough: it covers creation side effects, network immutability, activation gating, and the workaround. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but the critical behavioral context for correct invocation is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate for under-documented parameters. It adds meaningful semantics for 'activate' by explaining the activation prerequisite and the fallback behavior, and clarifies the network binding. However, it doesn't add detail about passphrase or description beyond what the schema already provides.

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 creates a new agent identity and lists explicit side effects: generating a Nostr keypair and Solana wallet, and saving config to a specific path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like switch_agent and list_agents by specifying the creation scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it names switch_agent as the alternative for moving between existing agents, and clarifies the fixed-network constraint with a concrete recommendation to create an agent per network. It also explains the activation prerequisite and how to handle the case where activation fails.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools