Register a new user account for BeezUP merchant services. Provide user details in the request body to create an account.
User Registration
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "Register"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'User Registration' only hints at creating a user but does not disclose effects like sending activation emails, storing data, or requiring confirmation. Key behavioral traits are omitted.
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?
The description is only two words, which is too short to be informative. While concise, it fails to provide necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should clearly state the tool's purpose and behavior. However, it provides no context about the registration process, required inputs, or expected outcomes. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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%, but the schema only says 'Request body' for the parameter, which is extremely vague. The tool description adds no further meaning about the required structure or fields of the body. Baseline is 3, but the poor schema description and lack of compensation reduce the score.
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 'User Registration' indicates the tool is for registration, but it is vague. It does not specify whether it creates a new user, validates data, or sends a confirmation email. This lack of specificity means it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'ActivateUserAccount' or 'Login'.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ActivateUserAccount' for activation, 'Login' for authentication). An agent would have no guidance on scenario selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.