Add members to a Sitecore role by specifying the role identity and a comma-separated list of users or roles.
Adds a member to a Sitecore role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| members | Yes | The members to add to the role (comma-separated list of users or roles, e.g. 'sitecore\user1,sitecore\user2') | |
| identity | Yes | The identity of the role to add members to (e.g. 'CustomRole' or full path 'sitecore\CustomRole') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no idempotency behavior, no permission requirements, no indication of what happens when a member is already in the role.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 only two fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the structured fields carry most of the load. The description is minimally sufficient but omits any behavioral or failure-mode context an agent would want for a mutation call.
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 100%, with both parameters documented including format examples and comma-separated syntax. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (adds) and resource (member to a Sitecore role), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as security-remove-role-member or security-get-role-member, but the action itself is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the related security role tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as the role needing to exist first. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.