Create a new Remnawave API token with a name, expiration in days, and scopes. Requires an admin JWT; API-key access is forbidden.
Create a new API token. This endpoint is forbidden to use via "API-key". It can only be used with an admin JWT-token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the API token | |
| scopes | No | Scopes of the API token | |
| expiresInDays | Yes | Expiration days of the API token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the authentication constraint (admin JWT only, API-key forbidden), which is exactly the kind of operational detail the annotations cannot convey.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the auth caveat following. No wasted words; the definition is easily parsed.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., whether the token secret is revealed only once), which is a notable gap for a token-creation tool. Still, it covers the purpose and the critical auth constraint needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 all three parameters (name, scopes, expiresInDays) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new API token"), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like api_tokens_list or api_tokens_delete, but the create action is unambiguous from the name plus description.
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?
Provides one important usage precondition: the endpoint is forbidden via API-key and requires an admin JWT-token. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus api_tokens_list (e.g., check for existing tokens first) or any workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.