Manually set the application domain and tenant ID for repository creation.
Args: domain: Application domain URL tenant_id: Tenant ID for the project project_name: Project name (optional) tenant_group_id: Tenant Group ID (optional)
Returns: JSON string with confirmation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| tenant_id | Yes | ||
| project_name | No | ||
| tenant_group_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions the mutation ('set') and the return format ('JSON string with confirmation'), but it does not state whether the change is persistent, requires special permissions, or affects existing repositories. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose up front, followed by an Args list, then a Returns line. No fluff, each element earns its place, and the format is scannable.
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?
The tool has no annotations and an output schema exists, so returns are covered elsewhere. However, the description misses essential context: it does not explain when this setting takes effect, whether it is required before repository creation, or how it interacts with create_project. It also lacks details on permission requirements and side effects, leaving an incomplete picture for a state-changing tool.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the parameter meanings. The Args section lists all four parameters, but the explanations are terse and largely restate the parameter names (e.g., 'tenant_id: Tenant ID for the project'). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, except clarifying that domain is a URL.
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 tool's function: 'Manually set the application domain and tenant ID for repository creation.' This is a specific verb (set) with a clear object and purpose, and it stands apart from sibling tools like create_project or get_projects.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for repository creation' implies it is a setup step, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Sibling tools such as create_project are not referenced.
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.
