Create an access scope for tenant isolation. Actors assigned to a scope have all communication automatically isolated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the scope | |
| slug | Yes | URL-safe identifier (e.g., "client-acme"). Lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens only. | |
| metadata | No | Optional key-value metadata | |
| description | No | Optional description |
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 that actors assigned to a scope get automatic communication isolation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions required, idempotency, uniqueness of slug, or the return value. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.
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 without an output schema, the description explains the core concept and behavioral consequence (communication isolation). It does not describe the return value, but the tool's simplicity and complete input schema make this a minor gap. The overall context is adequate.
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 schema covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions, including slug formatting rules. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'access scope', with the specific purpose of tenant isolation. It also distinguishes this from sibling creation tools like create_actor or create_room by focusing on scope creation.
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 for when to use this tool: for creating access scopes that enforce tenant isolation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the surrounding sibling tools (update_scope, delete_scope) imply the create/read/update/delete pattern.
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 follow a clear resource-action pattern, but create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be confused, as agents and orchestrators are specialized actors. Similarly, publish and dispatch_task both send messages to topics, though descriptions clarify. Overall, boundaries are mostly distinct.
All tools use the nolag_ prefix with consistent verb_noun snake_case naming. Verbs include create, delete, get, list, update, set, retry, dispatch, publish, generate, and configure. No mixed conventions are present.
At 35 tools, this server exceeds the recommended range for a typical MCP server. While each tool serves a purpose, many CRUD operations could be consolidated (e.g., create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be one tool with a type parameter). The count feels heavy.
The toolset covers core lifecycle operations for apps, actors, rooms, scopes, and webhooks, plus messaging, task dispatch, blackboard state, and agent event streaming. Minor gaps exist (no explicit agent-specific update, no webhook delete), but agents can work around these with general actor/app operations.
