Create a new role.
Args: name: Role name description: Role description slug: Role slug (URL-friendly identifier) project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided
Returns: JSON string with role creation result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| project_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the detail that project_key uses global tenant_id if not provided, which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, duplicates, or error handling, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns list. No words are wasted, and all lines contribute useful 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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and notes the tenant fallback behavior. The return value is stated as a JSON string, and an output schema exists, so the vague return description is acceptable. Minor gaps remain around error cases and permissions.
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 0%, so the param list in the description carries the semantic burden. It provides meaningful glosses: slug is a 'URL-friendly identifier' and project_key is a 'tenant ID' with a default fallback. The name/description glosses are basic but confirm the role owner.
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 opens with 'Create a new role,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_permission or create_project. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the resource it operates on.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list any exclusion criteria. However, the clear 'Create a new role' statement implies the primary use case, and the sibling tools are distinct enough that the intended usage is inferable.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.
With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.
The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.
