Brokers workspace credential grants for connected services
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "credential_broker"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether it issues, reads, or revokes credentials, whether authentication or workspace scoping is required, whether secrets are returned, or whether the operation is destructive or idempotent.
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?
It is one short sentence with zero filler, which is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight, front-loaded, actionable 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?
No annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and no disclosure of return values or credential sensitivity. For a tool that brokers credentials, the definition is far too thin for an agent to call safely.
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 single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about what a query means here (service name, grant ID, free text). The definition adds no meaning beyond a schema that is itself undocumented.
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?
"Brokers workspace credential grants for connected services" largely restates the name 'credential_broker' and does not state a concrete action the agent can act on (issue a grant? look one up? revoke?). It gives no basis for distinguishing this from credential-related siblings such as token_vault or vault_lookup.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as oauth_refresh, token_vault, or vault_lookup. The agent is left guessing among several credential-adjacent siblings.
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.