Skip to main content
Glama

add_org_agent

Add an agent to this organization: creates it, gives it one role on a folder, a document or the whole organization, and returns its token. You can only give what you own — a scope you own or one below it. Agents you add may add agents of their own, bounded the same way. Names need not be unique; each agent gets its own id. TWO CALLS: the first previews and creates nothing; call again with its confirm_token to create. The token is shown once, in that answer. Retire the agent with revoke_org_agent when its work is done.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYeswhat to call the agent, e.g. 'seo-bot'. People and agents see this name on the board
roleYesreader reads; writer also edits; owner also grants access and adds agents there
tokenNoBearer token identifying the principal. Usually omitted — supplied by the transport (HTTP Authorization header or the server's AGENTLEFS_TOKEN env). Only pass this to override.
locationNothe folder or document, e.g. 'growth' or 'growth/seo'. Omit for the organization
scope_typeNodefault folder. 'organization' is the whole organization and takes no location
confirm_tokenNofrom the first call. Calling without it PREVIEWS: nothing is created.
expires_in_daysNohow long the agent's token lives, 1–365; default 90

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool creates an agent, returns a token shown only once, requires a confirm_token on the second call, allows non-unique names, and explains scope-ownership constraints.

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 dense yet efficient; every sentence contributes a distinct fact needed to call the tool correctly. It front-loads the purpose and then moves through constraints, naming, the two-call flow, token visibility, and revocation without repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: creation, role assignment, scoping, ownership boundaries, agent inheritance, token handling, and cleanup. The schema handles remaining parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: ownership scoping ('a scope you own or one below it'), non-unique names with independent IDs, and the preview/confirm_token lifecycle. This meaningfully enriches understanding of the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an agent to this organization: creates it, gives it one role on a folder, a document or the whole organization, and returns its token.' This clearly distinguishes add_org_agent from sibling tools like add_org_source or revoke_org_agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage context: ownership limits, the two-call preview/confirm workflow, and an explicit pointer to revoke_org_agent for retirement. It does not formally contrast with other 'add' tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to call it.

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.

Resources