Create a new hosting client by submitting reseller ID and client parameters. Simplifies client provisioning on ISPConfig.
Create a new client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Client params (company_name, contact_name, username, password, email, etc.) | |
| reseller_id | Yes | Reseller ID (0 for admin) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Create a new client' only indicates a creation operation; it does not disclose side effects, required authorization, behavior on duplicate usernames, or any related resource creation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.
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?
The tool is a create operation with nested params and no output schema. The description offers no usage context, behavioral details, or return-value expectations, relying entirely on the schema for parameter information. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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%, so the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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, 'Create a new client', has a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling client_get, client_update, and client_delete, and from add tools for other resource types.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of conditions such as reseller context or required permissions. The name implies the purpose, but the description provides no explicit use-case guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.