Registers or rejoins an agent on the GhostBus with a role and capabilities, returning a one-time token to store for later token-enforced calls.
Register (or rejoin) this agent on the bus with a role and capabilities. First registration returns a per-agent token ONCE — store it; on a token-enforced bus it must be passed as token on later calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| agent | Yes | ||
| token | No | ||
| capabilities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical side effect that the per-agent token is returned ONCE on first registration and must be stored, plus the conditional requirement to pass it as `token` on later calls. It does not address idempotency of rejoin (does a rejoin issue a new token or reuse the stored one), which is the main open behavioral question.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the one detail that causes real failures if missed (store the one-time token). No filler.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, but the description covers the highest-risk aspect (one-time token issuance and reuse). Gaps remain around rejoin semantics and the meaning of the `agent` identifier, which matter for a registration tool.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of `token` and loosely maps `role`/`capabilities`, but the only required parameter, `agent`, is never explained in either the schema or the description.
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 names a specific verb and resource (register/rejoin this agent on the bus) and states the payload semantics (role and capabilities). It is clear enough to distinguish from bus_rotate_token or bus_heartbeat by intent, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
The parenthetical '(or rejoin)' implies this is both the first-contact and reconnect path, and the token sentence implies later calls are token-enforced. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer bus_rotate_token, bus_status, or bus_heartbeat, or what to do if registration fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.