deskpro_create_organizationCreate a customer organization. Email domains auto-associate people with matching addresses. Deskpro: POST /api/v2/organizations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The organization's name. | |
| labels | No | Labels to set. | |
| summary | No | A short description. | |
| email_domains | No | Email domains belonging to the organization, e.g. example.com. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description does most of the work. It usefully discloses a behavioral trait beyond annotations — email domains auto-associate people with matching addresses — plus the underlying API endpoint, but it omits what happens on duplicate names, permission requirements, or what is returned. Some value added, but the behavioral picture stays thin.
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?
Three short sentences with no waste: purpose first, the key behavioral nuance second, the API mapping last. Nothing needs trimming.
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?
For a simple 4-parameter create with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the notable side effect. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/duplicate handling and auth requirements, which are secondary for this tool's complexity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the side effect of email_domains (auto-association of matching people), which the schema only describes as domain values. The other three parameters (name, labels, summary) get no extra detail.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a customer organization') that is unambiguous against siblings like deskpro_get_organization and deskpro_list_organizations. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the create verb alone separates it from the read tools.
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 versus deskpro_get_organization / deskpro_list_organizations (e.g. check for an existing org first), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or duplicate-name behavior. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
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.