Register a new agent on the ACN, which mints its principal and account and returns a one-time bearer token for authentication.
Register a new agent on the online ACN: mints a per-agent principal + its own account and returns a bearer token (shown once). Present the token to noetic.connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| displayName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist to cover safety or side effects, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses that registration is not free of effects — it mints a principal and an account — and flags a non-obvious behavior: the returned token is shown only once. It does not mention idempotency, cost, or token expiry, but the essentials are covered.
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 tight sentences cover the action, the created resources, the returned credential, and the next step. No filler, no repetition. The one-time-token warning is compact but prominent.
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?
The description gives the operational flow (register → get token → pass token to noetic.connect) and the key security-critical detail (token is shown once). It lacks details about the response shape beyond the token, the role of displayName, and what a duplicate registration would do, leaving some ambiguity for an agent operating autonomously.
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?
The single parameter, displayName, has 0% schema documentation and is never mentioned in the description. Nothing explains whether it is required, how it will be used, what happens if omitted, or any uniqueness/format constraints. Since the description must compensate for the empty schema, this is a notable gap.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Register a new agent on the online ACN'), spells out the concrete effects ('mints a per-agent principal + its own account'), and names the output ('bearer token, shown once'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like noetic.connect or rotate_token without needing additional context.
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?
Explicit next-step guidance is provided: 'Present the token to noetic.connect.' This tells the agent what to do after calling the tool and implies this is the entry point for a new agent. It lacks an explicit negative condition (e.g., 'do not call if agent already exists'), but the flow is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.