createUser
Create user. - This can only be done by the logged in user.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| createUserBody | No | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No |
Petstore MCP Server
by ai.com.mcp
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement but gives no information about side effects, input validation, or behavior on duplicate users. It only restates the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides the auth constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a nested body object and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain required fields, defaults, or return behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the createUserBody object or its properties. It provides zero value for understanding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create user' which clearly identifies the operation as creating a single user. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool createUsersWithListInput, which also creates users, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that 'This can only be done by the logged in user,' providing an authentication prerequisite. However, it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this over createUsersWithListInput or other alternatives, so usage context is only partially specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but updatePet and updatePetWithForm overlap in purpose (both update a pet), creating minor ambiguity. Other pairs like createUser and createUsersWithListInput are clearly different.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming mixes verbs (addPet vs createUser, findPetsByStatus vs getPetById) and styles, but each resource area follows a somewhat predictable pattern (get* for reads, update* for updates, delete* for deletes). Not chaotic, but inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
19 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a petstore server covering pets, orders, and users. Each tool serves a distinct need, and the count reflects the multi-domain scope.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for pets, orders, and users, including create, read, update, delete, and search operations. Additional operations like login, logout, and inventory are present. No obvious gaps for the expected domain.