Returns this server's own INAM identity (did:key), its connected registry URL, and whether signed writes like job registration or receipt submission are enabled.
Returns this MCP server's own INAM identity (did:key), the registry URL it is connected to, and whether signed writes (register / post job / submit receipt) are enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by revealing what the call actually returns and, notably, that it reports whether signed writes (register/post job/submit receipt) are enabled — a useful capability signal.
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 with the primary output (the server's own identity) front-loaded, followed by the two secondary return fields. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or title.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so explicitly (identity, registry URL, signed-write status). Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. No parameter semantics are missing or misrepresented.
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?
States a precise verb (returns) and three concrete outputs: the server's own did:key identity, the connected registry URL, and whether signed writes are enabled. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inam_search_agents or inam_check_reputation, which operate on other agents rather than the server's own identity.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to discover its own identity, registry, and write capability, but the description never says when to prefer it or what triggers it. Since no sibling tool covers self-identity, the absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.