Approve pending users to grant them access to your tailnet and resolve access requests.
Approve a pending user, granting them access to the tailnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user ID to approve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention idempotency even though idempotentHint=true is present, nor does it describe side effects or prerequisites.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the purpose.
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 simple operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient, but could benefit from noting idempotency or any prerequisites.
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?
The single parameter (userId) is already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Approve a pending user') and the resource ('user'), differentiating it from sibling tools like suspend, restore, or delete users.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. While the context implies it's for approving pending users, there is no mention of when not to use it or contrasting with related tools like tailscale_authorize_device.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.