OpenFGA MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'batch creation' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on partial failures. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise (one sentence in Korean) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient despite potential content gaps.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (implied by 'creation') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain tuple structure or environment implications), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('batch creation') and resource ('tuples'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like openfga_tuple_write (single tuple creation) or openfga_tuple_delete (deletion), which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.

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. With siblings like openfga_tuple_write (single tuple) and openfga_tuple_delete, there's no indication that this is for bulk operations or any prerequisites for use, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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