Issue a portable, signed identity passport token (verifiable offline)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Optional scope restriction for the passport | |
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to issue passport for | |
| ttl_hours | No | Token validity in hours (max 720) |
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 carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that the token is signed, portable, and offline-verifiable, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or whether the operation is destructive. This is partial but not rich behavioral context.
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?
A single, tightly worded sentence conveys the core purpose and key characteristics. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and scannable.
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?
Despite full schema parameter descriptions, the tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description does not explain return values, failure modes, or usage context. For a state-changing issuance tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (agent_id, scope, ttl_hours). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schemas provide, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 ('Issue') with a clear resource ('portable, signed identity passport token') and adds a distinctive qualifier ('verifiable offline'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_passport and verify_passport.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_passport for retrieving, verify_passport for checking). There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or contexts where issuance is appropriate.
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 target distinct resources and actions. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.