Skip to main content
Glama
WYRE-AI

avanan-legacy-mcp

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

avanan_create_tenant

Creates a new customer tenant under an MSP, provisioning admin contact, company name, and region. Enables onboarding of new customers with required details.

Instructions

Create a new customer tenant under the current MSP.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
MSPIdNoParent MSPs only: create the tenant under this child MSP.
phoneYesTenant administrator phone number (10 digits).
adminNameYesTenant administrator's first and last name.
adminEmailYesTenant administrator email.
tenantNameYesTenant name (used in the customer portal domain).
companyNameYesName of the company associated with the tenant.
tenantRegionYesCountry code for tenant creation region (lowercase).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / MSPId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Parent MSPs only: create the tenant under this child MSP.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Addedv1.1.1
  3. Removedv1.1.0
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('create') but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on duplicate tenant names, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage condition, but as-is it is efficient and readable.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not mention required permissions, the meaning of the MSPId field for parent MSPs, or what a successful creation returns. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not provide the operational context an agent needs to invoke this correctly in an MSP hierarchy.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The MSPId parameter's conditional behavior ('Parent MSPs only') is in the schema, not the description, so the description does not compensate for any ambiguity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('create'), a specific resource ('customer tenant'), and the scope ('under the current MSP'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like avanain_create_msp_partner and avanain_create_msp_user, which create different resource types. The title is null, but the description alone is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for MSPs creating customer tenants, and the sibling list shows related create tools for MSP partners and users, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. The MSPId parameter hints at a parent/child MSP scenario, but the description does not explain when to use it or when to use a different creation tool. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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