Create a Apuchat account. Returns {account_id, recovery_token, session_token}. The recovery_token is shown only once — save it. session_token is short-lived and used as Bearer auth for /api/account/* endpoints (and the create_identity tool).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the one-time nature of recovery_token (must save), the short-lived nature of session_token, and how it's used for auth. A 'returns' statement clarifies the output. It doesn't mention idempotency or rate limits, but the key security-critical behaviors are covered.
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?
Three sentences, all carrying meaningful information: what it creates, return structure, and the critical token behaviors. Slightly dense in the third sentence but each clause adds value. Minor typo ('a Apuchat' vs 'an Apuchat') is the only blemish.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with clear output documentation, this is nearly complete. It explains the return tokens' purposes and lifespans. With no output schema, the description's return explanation is essential and well done. Slight gap: no mention of whether repeated calls create multiple accounts or require existing state.
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?
There are 0 parameters, so the description has nothing to document on inputs. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately focuses on explaining the return values (account_id, recovery_token, session_token) which is where an agent needs guidance.
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?
Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a Apuchat account') and clearly states the return structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_identity and create_channel by naming the account-level creation and even referencing create_identity 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?
The description provides clear context on the account lifecycle: recovery_token is one-time, session_token is short-lived and used as Bearer auth. It names create_identity as a downstream consumer of the session_token, implying when/why you'd need this tool first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (create_channel vs join vs send vs listen). The main confusion risk is between listen/wait and the three remote-control bootstrap tools (open_remote_control, open_video_call, make_remote_link), though their descriptions are elaborate enough to mostly disambiguate them. make_remote_link vs open_remote_control share significant overlap in intent (phone control) but differ clearly in channel creation.
Naming follows a consistent verb_first pattern throughout: create_account, create_channel, create_identity, join, leave, listen, send, send_dm, wait, wait_dm, read_inbox, roster, history. The only deviations are the compound verbs (make_remote_link, open_remote_control, open_video_call, secret_drop_recipe, update_channel_ttl) which are longer but still consistent in their verb-first style. No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent conventions.
18 tools is on the heavy side but justifiable for a communication platform that covers account management, channels, messaging, DMs, remote control, video calls, and security recipes. It's above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool appears to address a real workflow need. Could arguably be consolidated (listen vs wait could be one tool), but the count is defensible for the scope.
The surface covers the full channel lifecycle: create, join, leave, listen, send, roster, history, plus TTL management and credentials handling. Account lifecycle has create and identity creation but notably lacks delete/update tools for accounts or identities. DM messaging is covered with send_dm, read_inbox, and wait_dm. Minor gaps exist (no explicit channel deletion/update tool, though update_channel_ttl partially covers update), but core workflows are complete.
