Register a new user in a Verdaccio private npm registry and return a Bearer token for authentication.
Register a new user in the Verdaccio registry. Returns a Bearer token on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | Desired password | |
| username | Yes | Desired username |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect/return — a Bearer token issued on success — but says nothing about failure modes (username already taken), permission requirements, or whether the new user is authenticated afterward.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return value follows immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it partially does by mentioning the Bearer token. However, with no annotations and a mutation-style tool, the absence of error behavior and auth/permission context leaves visible gaps.
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 100% (username and password both documented), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning such as password constraints or username format rules, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Register a new user in the Verdaccio registry.' This is clearly distinct from an authenticate-style tool like the sibling 'login', but the description never names that sibling or states the boundary explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'login' (the obvious alternative), nor any prerequisite such as whether registration is open or requires existing credentials. The agent must infer the entire usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.