Skip to main content
Glama
WYRE-AI

avanan-legacy-mcp

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

avanan_create_msp_partner

Create a child MSP partner under your existing MSP by supplying name, website, country, and ZIP; US partners also require state.

Instructions

Create a new child MSP partner under the current MSP (msppartners-extended endpoint, July 2026 guide).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zipYesPostal / ZIP code.
nameYesName of the new MSP partner.
stateNoUS state name from the guide's state list. Required only when country is 'United States'.
countryYesCountry the MSP is located in, spelled as in the guide's country list (e.g. 'United States').
websiteYesMSP partner website URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / country
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Country the MSP is located in, spelled as in the guide's country list (e.g. 'United States').",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "US state name from the guide's state list. Required only when country is 'United States'.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "MSP partner website URL.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / zip
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Postal / ZIP code.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "website",
+  "country",
+  "zip"
+]
  2. Addedv1.1.1
  3. Removedv1.1.0
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the creation action but does not disclose response behavior, idempotency, permissions, or how the 'current MSP' is determined.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main action is front-loaded in one concise sentence retd. The endpoint and guide date add useful provenance but are secondary to selecting or invoking the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks important operational context such as return values, idempotency, permissions, or how the current MSP is identified. The endpoint mention is helpful but not sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the 'under the current MSP' context but no additional parameter-level meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: creates a new child MSP partner under the current MSP. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list, delete, or create-user operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 over alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring the current MSP context or whether partner creation is needed before assigning tenants. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools