OpenFGA MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a write operation ('배포' - deploy) but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it overwrites existing models, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the main action.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on deployment (e.g., model versioning, validation), error cases, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'DSL 파일 경로 또는 DSL 문자열' (DSL file path or DSL string), which aligns with the schema's 'filePath' and 'dsl' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's already covered.

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 clearly states the action ('배포' - deploy) and resource ('OpenFGA Authorization Model'), specifying it deploys models from either DSL file paths or DSL strings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openfga_model_read' or 'openfga_tuple_write', which handle different operations on similar resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a storeId), exclusions (e.g., not for reading models), or compare with siblings like 'openfga_model_read' for retrieval or 'openfga_tuple_write' for tuple operations, leaving usage context unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.