VibeTape MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

register_actor

Instructions

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "register_actor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique actor ID (e.g., "agent_code_reviewer", "user_sam")
`name`	Yes	Display name
`type`	Yes	Actor type
`description`	No	What this actor does
`capabilities`	No	List of capabilities (e.g., ["review", "test", "deploy"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the registration intent without mentioning idempotency, duplicate ID handling, validation, permissions, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Register' and immediately specifying the resource and purpose. It contains no filler or redundant details, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks critical context such as success/failure behavior, prerequisites, uniqueness constraints, and its role within the broader traceability system. While the schema covers parameter details, the overall tool context is under-specified, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as all five parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'register' with a clear resource ('agent or human actor') and purpose ('for traceability'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_actors and get_actor_stats by indicating a creation/registration action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other actor-related tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb and the context of sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.