Create a shell user for an ISPConfig client account, enabling the client to access the server via a command line.
Create a shell user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Shell user params | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a shell user' and does not explain consequences, permission requirements, potential failure modes, or what happens upon success. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core purpose is immediately visible.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what must be provided inside the free-form params object, what a successful response looks like, or any side effects. An agent would not be able to reliably construct a valid call from this description alone.
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 baseline is 3. However, the property descriptions are very shallow: 'Shell user params' and 'Client ID' add little operational meaning, and the params object is a free-form object with no property definitions. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a shell user.' It accurately describes the operation and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like mail_user_add or client_add. However, it offers no additional scope or distinguishing detail beyond the literal action, so it is clear but minimal.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name and resource type that this is the right choice; there is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools for similar tasks, or conditions under which this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.