Create a new Sitecore role by specifying its identity or full path, enabling security management through the MCP Sitecore server.
Creates a new Sitecore role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the unprojected .NET object graph. Very large (100,000+ chars/item); diagnostics only. | |
| identity | Yes | The identity of the role to create (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 already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the role already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what is returned.
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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the entire description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no additional information.
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 no output schema, the description omits anything an agent would want before writing: duplicate-role behavior, required permissions, and the shape of the result. The annotations cover only the coarse safety profile, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.
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%, including a helpful example of both short and full-path identity formats plus a clear warning that 'full' produces very large diagnostic output. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 is correct.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new Sitecore role'), which clearly separates it from siblings like security-remove-role, security-get-role, and security-new-domain. It stops short of naming an alternative or disambiguating from related role tools, so it earns 4 rather than 5.
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 versus security-add-role-member, security-new-user, or security-export/import-account, nor any prerequisite (e.g. admin context) or condition under which creation should be avoided. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.