Registers external agents with their Ed25519 public key, nonce signature, capabilities, and call price to establish trust and enable interactions in the Soma protocol.
Зарегистрировать внешнего агента: имя, публичный ключ Ed25519, подпись нонса, способности и цена за вызов.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| proof | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| cost_per_call | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose the security scheme: an Ed25519 public key and a signature over a nonce, which explains what the opaque 'proof' parameter actually is. It says nothing about idempotency, whether a duplicate agent name is rejected, or what happens to existing registrations.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the field enumeration after it; there is no filler. It is essentially a parameter list, so it is efficient rather than richly structured.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a registration mutation with no annotations, the missing prerequisite flow (nonce acquisition) and uniqueness/re-registration behavior leave real gaps an agent would need.
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%, but the description compensates well by mapping all five parameters to meanings: agent name, Ed25519 public key, nonce signature, capabilities, and cost per call. It does not clarify types, defaults (null capabilities, 0 cost), or the nonce/signature format, so it is slightly short of exhaustive.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Зарегистрировать внешнего агента" — register an external agent) and enumerates the fields involved, so an agent can tell this is the onboarding/creation tool rather than a read tool like soma_agents or soma_verify. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a nonce via soma_nonce before producing the signature. Usage is only inferable from the name and the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.