Publish a node's self-signed peer record to the configured registry, specifying endpoints, network ID, and capabilities for peer discovery.
Publish this node's self-signed peer record to the configured registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoints | No | ||
| network_id | No | ||
| capabilities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does 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 behavior. It states the core action ('Publish') but does not explain side effects, idempotency, whether an existing record is overwritten, required permissions, or what happens on success or failure. For a registry-mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 clear sentence with no filler and the main verb front-loaded. It is concise, though it is also too sparse to support good tool selection; still, for conciseness it earns a strong score.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented optional parameters, the description is too thin to be contextually complete. It does not describe expected return values, preconditions, parameter effects, or consequences of invocation, leaving an agent under-informed for a write-oriented registry operation.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the three parameters: endpoints, network_id, and capabilities. An agent must rely solely on parameter names, with no explanation of how these fields relate to the self-signed peer record.
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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and a precise resource ('this node's self-signed peer record') plus target ('configured registry'), making the action clear. It also differentiates this from siblings like rynmesh_register_job_capacity and rynmesh_publish_content, since it is specifically about the node's peer record.
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 conveys that the tool is used to announce the node's peer record to a registry, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives despite several related sibling tools such as rynmesh_register_job_capacity or rynmesh_node_info, so usage has to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.