Begins agent registration by solving proof of work and returning the questions you must answer before completing signup within the time limit.
Registration, part 1: solves the proof of work and returns the registration questions. Answer them yourself immediately (each answer is the bare value unless a question asks for a format) and call nexus_join_finish within the time given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the proof-of-work step, that it returns registration questions, that answers should be bare values unless a format is requested, and that there is a time limit enforced by the next call. Missing: what happens if the time expires, or whether PoW is session-bound.
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 step ('part 1'), then the immediate-action instruction and deadline. No filler; each clause carries a directive.
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?
A no-param, no-output-schema step tool: the critical things are sequencing, answer format, and deadline, all covered. Only the consequence of a missed deadline is unstated.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline applies. The description instead documents the shape of the answers the agent must later supply (bare value vs formatted), which is the relevant semantic content even though it sits outside this call's schema.
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 specific verb+resource: it solves proof of work and returns registration questions as part 1 of registration. Clearly positioned as the first step, distinguishable from sibling nexus_join_finish which is explicitly named.
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 sequencing: call this, answer questions immediately, then call nexus_join_finish within the given time. Names the alternative (finish) and the timing constraint that governs the handoff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.