Adds a new user to Zendesk with required name and email, plus optional role, phone, organization, and notes.
Create a new user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | User's full name | |
| role | No | User's role | |
| tags | No | Tags for the user | |
| Yes | User's email address | ||
| notes | No | Notes about the user | |
| phone | No | User's phone number | |
| organization_id | No | ID of the user's organization |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds nothing beyond 'Create a new user' — it does not mention side effects, uniqueness constraints (e.g., duplicate email), authentication requirements, or what happens on failure. With no annotation coverage for these aspects, the description fails to enrich behavioral understanding.
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 sentence with zero redundancy. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does without wasting words.
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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not mention required parameters (name, email), the role enum, or what the response will contain. An agent has no idea what to expect from a successful call or how to interpret errors, making the description nearly useless beyond the schema.
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 parameters (name, email, role, tags, notes, phone, organization_id) are already well-documented with their own descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high 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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('a new user'), distinguishing it from update/delete/list operations on users. However, it does not specify any unique behavior or scope beyond that, making it adequate but not exceptional.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_organization or create_ticket, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an organization must exist first). The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.