create_portal_sessionAuthenticated tool to create portal session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | ||
| theme | No | ||
| recipient | Yes | ||
| returnUrl | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| recipientName | No | ||
| expiresInSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool is authenticated, but annotations already indicate it is not read-only, idempotent, or open-world. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions required) beyond the annotation flags.
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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified. Brevity does not compensate for lacking necessary information; it is not efficiently informative.
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?
With 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It provides no context on return values, session lifecycle, or how to use parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., appId, recipient, theme). The description adds no value in understanding parameter meaning.
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 it creates a portal session, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_portal_host' or 'check_portal_host'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what a portal session is.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it is authenticated, but does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.