tailscale_authorize_deviceAuthorize a pending device in your Tailscale tailnet by providing its device ID to grant network access.
Authorize a device that is pending authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | The device ID to authorize. nodeId from tailscale_list_devices (e.g. nPM2KNuedB21DEVEL); numeric id ok; not the nodeKey. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Input schema / properties / deviceId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The device ID to authorize"New value: +"The device ID to authorize. nodeId from tailscale_list_devices (e.g. nPM2KNuedB21DEVEL); numeric id ok; not the nodeKey."v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only, is not destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds the useful constraint that only pending-authorization devices are relevant, but does not disclose consequences beyond that, such as what authorization enables for the device.
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, focused sentence with no filler. The action and the prerequisite condition are front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The description adequately states the action and condition; a small gap is the lack of any note about authorization effects or alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for calling the tool.
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%, and the deviceId parameter is well documented with an example and a warning not to use the nodeKey. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Authorize') applied to a specific resource ('a device') with a clear precondition ('pending authorization'). This clearly distinguishes a single-device authorization action from siblings like tailscale_deauthorize_device or tailscale_set_devices_authorized.
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?
The description gives a clear usage context: use this tool for devices that are pending authorization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as batch authorization via tailscale_set_devices_authorized, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.