Create a new actor. The access token is only shown once - save it immediately!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Actor name (e.g., 'web-client', 'mobile-app', 'backend-server') | |
| actorType | Yes | Type of actor | |
| externalId | No | External ID for linking to your system | |
| description | No | Actor description |
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?
The description discloses the critical behavioral trait that the access token is shown only once, requiring immediate saving. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only covers this one behavior. It does not mention other side effects, response structure, or authorization requirements beyond the token.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences with the purpose in the first five words. The token warning is critical and directly follows the purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted text.
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 create tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but does include the crucial token warning. It lacks usage context, what constitutes a successful response (beyond the token), and any prerequisites. While the core purpose is clear, an agent would need additional information for full autonomous invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including examples for 'name' and an enum for 'actorType'. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Create a new actor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent or create_app, which target different entity types. The name and title align perfectly with the described action.
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 alternative create tools. The only additional sentence is a warning about saving the access token, which is a post-creation action, not a selection criterion. No context about prerequisites or situations where this tool is preferred is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
