Create a new user account in the Remnawave panel. Provide username and expiration date, plus optional email, status, protocol passwords, traffic limits and squad assignments.
POST /api/users Create a new user Tags: Users Controller
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Подтверждение выполнения не-GET операции. Без confirm:true возвращается превью запроса (метод, URL, тело) и запрос не отправляется (см. MCP_CONFIRM). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not mention that this is a mutating write, that a confirm flag gates execution (documented only in the schema in Russian), auth/permission requirements, side effects on squads/traffic counters, or error behavior for duplicate usernames. Only the implicit POST semantics hint at a write.
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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise: three fragments where two of them (the raw route and the controller tag) convey nothing an agent can act on. Brevity here comes from omission, not from efficient editing.
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 mutation tool with a nested object body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs. There is no confirmation of write semantics, no required-field summary, no indication of what is returned on success, and no warning about validation constraints (e.g., unique username).
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 description coverage is 50%, and the two top-level parameters are the ones left thin: `body` has no description and `confirm` is described only in the schema (and in Russian). The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though the nested body fields are well documented in the schema itself.
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?
"Create a new user" is a clear verb+resource, so the basic purpose is legible, and the REST path reinforces it. But the description offers zero differentiation from the many sibling user tools (users_update_user, users_bulk_actions_bulk_update_users, users_create... via bulk) and names no distinguishing capability. It reads as an auto-generated title plus endpoint line rather than a purposeful statement.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as the bulk user creation or update paths. An agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone. Only the bare action is stated, which is the definition of no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.