Creates a signed handle to manage cross-call state, replacing protocol sessions.
Mint an explicit, signed handle for cross-call state (replaces protocol sessions).
The model passes the handle back to other tools as an argument. It is visible in the conversation on purpose: auditable state beats hidden state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It mentions the handle is 'visible in the conversation on purpose,' which hints at transparency, but it does not explicitly describe side effects such as creating a persistent resource, modifying workspace state, or any security considerations associated with a 'signed' handle.
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 concise, consisting of just two sentences, and the information is presented directly without redundancy. The structure is logical, starting with the tool's purpose and then explaining how the result is used.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides moderate context about the tool's role and usage but lacks details on return value format, potential errors, or side effects. It is not fully complete for a tool that likely creates a resource.
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?
The only parameter 'name' has no description in the schema, and the description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., a handle name, workspace name, or something else). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to clarify this parameter, but it remains ambiguous.
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 clearly states a specific action ('mint') and a specific resource ('an explicit, signed handle for cross-call state'). It also provides context by noting this replaces protocol sessions, which helps distinguish its role from potential alternatives, though the term 'cross-call state' is somewhat jargon-heavy.
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 explains the general usage pattern (the model passes the handle back to other tools as an argument) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_contracts or verify_workspace_handle. It lacks clear conditions or examples for when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.