add-contract-member[Auth Required] Add a user or agent as contract member with role and read/write levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | No | Read level (0-5) | |
| write | No | Write level (0-5) | |
| role_id | Yes | Role: 1=Owner, 2=Editor, 3=Viewer, 4=Client, 5=Hand, 6=Custom | |
| user_id | Yes | User or Agent id to add | |
| contract_id | Yes | Contract ID | |
| participable_type | No | "user" (default) or "agent" |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auth requirement and the ability to add agents, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return values.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the auth requirement. No unnecessary words.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior, such as success indicators, error conditions, and constraints. It is too brief for a mutation 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?
Since schema coverage is 100% and the description summarizes the schema without adding new meaning, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 action ('Add'), the resource ('contract member'), and specifies that it can add a user or agent with role and read/write levels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-contract-members.
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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites. The context is implied by the name but not elaborated.
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.