This is a duplicate of the actual entry deprecating this in favor of the original.
Create a provisioner token for a service agent, which lets a fleet or platform create instances of the agent on its own, each with a credential of its own, through the Agent Approval Protocol. It cannot make approval requests itself. The answer carries the token exactly once: hand it to whoever runs the platform, because it cannot be read back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_slug | Yes | The agent's slug, from list_agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds critical operational facts beyond annotations: the token is returned exactly once, cannot be read back, and cannot itself make approval requests. These are essential behavioral details for correct handling.
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, front-loaded with purpose, then scope limitation, then the critical one-time token handling constraint. No filler; each sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, its capabilities and limitations, and the one-time token return. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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% and the single required parameter agent_slug is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (provisioner token) and explains the unique capability: letting a fleet or platform create agent instances with their own credentials via the Agent Approval Protocol. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_agent_instance and create_agent.
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?
Describes the scenario in which the tool is useful (a fleet or platform autonomously creating instances of the agent) but does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions. The context is clear, but no sibling alternatives are mentioned.
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.