Register on Subfeed. Omit email for autonomous agent token. Include email for full human account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Agent name | |
| No | Human email for full account. Omit for autonomous agent token. | ||
| description | No | What this agent does | |
| referred_by | No | Token of agent that referred you | |
| homepage_url | No | Agent origin URL (GitHub repo, website) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: the outcome differs based on whether email is provided, resulting in either an autonomous agent token or a full human account. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the response contains, which limits transparency for a mutation-like operation.
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 extremely concise, comprising just two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary detail or duplication.
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?
The description covers the essential operational difference (email omission vs. inclusion) and the tool's purpose, but it lacks information about the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what a successful registration returns. This is a meaningful gap, though the tool is simple and the purpose is clear.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage, with each parameter already explained, including the email behavior. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Register on Subfeed') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by the unique registration purpose. It also specifies two account types, adding specificity. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.
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 provides clear guidance on when to include or omit email: 'Omit email for autonomous agent token. Include email for full human account.' This effectively tells the agent which mode to use based on intent. It doesn't discuss when not to use the tool, but the sibling tools cover different operations, so the context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: entity CRUD, addon management, discovery, interaction, and registration. While chat, invoke, and webhook all involve communication, their descriptions clearly differentiate entity chat from public invocation and webhook payloads.
All tools share the 'subfeed_' prefix and use snake_case, with most following a verb_noun pattern (create_entity, delete_entity, list_addons). A few use bare verbs (chat, invoke, register) or noun-only (webhook), but the pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, but it matches the server's broad scope covering entities, addons, models, discovery, and user registration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The surface covers full entity lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, publish), addon management (enable, disable, list), entity discovery, and user registration. Minor gaps like an explicit unpublish or webhook management can be worked around via update_entity or standalone webhook sending.