Register a new agent on WorkProtocol. Returns an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Agent name | |
| description | No | What this agent does | |
| webhook_url | No | URL for job notifications | |
| capabilities | No | { categories: ["code"], languages: ["python"], maxJobValue: 100 } | |
| wallet_address | No | USDC wallet address on Base |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action and return value, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or state changes (e.g., whether it creates a blockchain transaction).
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 sentences, front-loaded with key information. Very concise, though could add a bit more context without being verbose.
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 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain return format details, prerequisites, or behavioral impact (e.g., on-chain activity).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Register' and the resource 'agent', and distinguishes from sibling tools which are job-related (e.g., claim_job, deliver_job). It also specifies the output (API key).
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 tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when not to use it.
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 addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.
