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 only states the action ('생성/create'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success. For a write operation 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 a single, efficient phrase in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral context needed for safe invocation. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks crucial operational information.

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 5 parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the tuple model (user-relation-object) or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'OpenFGA 튜플(권한 관계) 생성' clearly states the action (생성/create) and resource (튜플/권한 관계/tuple/permission relationship) in Korean. It distinguishes from siblings like openfga_tuple_read or openfga_tuple_delete by specifying creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from openfga_tuple_batch_write.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose openfga_tuple_write over openfga_tuple_batch_write for single vs. batch operations, or when to use it in the context of other OpenFGA tools like openfga_check or openfga_expand.

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