Join a campaign using a membership token to authenticate this connection and participate in governed multi-agent collaboration.
Authenticate this connection into a campaign using its membership token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| membership_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. 'Authenticate this connection' suggests a state-changing operation but does not explain whether membership persists, what side effects occur, or what failures are possible.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The action and the key input mechanism are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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?
For an authentication/joining operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how membership tokens are obtained, whether binding_token is required, and how this differs from join_session, though the schema partially documents binding_token.
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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'membership token' but does not explain campaign_id or clarify the relationship between binding_token and membership_token, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.
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 states a specific action ('Authenticate') and a clear resource ('this connection into a campaign'), which is informative. However, it does not distinguish join_campaign from the sibling join_session, leaving the differentiator to context.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like join_session, nor does it state prerequisites such as an existing invitation, campaign membership, or binding_token requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.