Skip to main content
Glama
YawLabs

@yawlabs/tailscale-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tailscale_create_posture_integration

Create a device posture integration linking a supported provider to Tailscale, enabling access control based on device compliance signals.

Instructions

Create a new device posture integration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cloudIdNoIdentifies which of the provider's clouds to integrate with. Falcon: us-1|us-2|eu-1|us-gov; Intune: global|us-gov; Jamf Pro/Kandji/Sentinel One: FQDN of your subdomain; Kolide: leave blank.
clientIdNoClient ID for the provider (Intune: application UUID; Falcon/Jamf Pro: client id; Fleet/Huntress/Kandji/Kolide/Sentinel One: leave blank)
providerYesThe posture provider slug: falcon (CrowdStrike Falcon), fleet, huntress, intune (Microsoft Intune), jamfpro (Jamf Pro), kandji (Iru, formerly Kandji), kolide (1Password XAM, formerly Kolide), sentinelone
tenantIdNoMicrosoft Intune directory (tenant) ID. Other providers leave blank.
clientSecretYesThe secret (auth key, token, etc.) used to authenticate with the provider. SENSITIVE: passed straight to Tailscale and not echoed back, but MCP clients may log the input value you supply.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.17.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / clientId / description
      Previous value: -"Client ID for the provider (Intune: application UUID; Falcon/Jamf Pro: client id; Kandji/Kolide/Sentinel One: leave blank)"New value: +"Client ID for the provider (Intune: application UUID; Falcon/Jamf Pro: client id; Fleet/Huntress/Kandji/Kolide/Sentinel One: leave blank)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"The posture provider"New value: +"The posture provider slug: falcon (CrowdStrike Falcon), fleet, huntress, intune (Microsoft Intune), jamfpro (Jamf Pro), kandji (Iru, formerly Kandji), kolide (1Password XAM, formerly Kolide), sentinelone"
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "falcon",
-  "intune",
-  "jamfpro",
-  "kandji",
-  "kolide",
-  "sentinelone"
-]New value: +[
+  "falcon",
+  "fleet",
+  "huntress",
+  "intune",
+  "jamfpro",
+  "kandji",
+  "kolide",
+  "sentinelone"
+]
  2. First observedv0.13.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as side effects, permission requirements, or the sensitive nature of clientSecret, and the secret sensitivity is only noted in the schema, not the tool description.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded. The word 'new' is slightly redundant with 'Create', but overall there is no filler and the description is appropriately concise for a simple create operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the rich input schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and resource, while parameters and safety hints are supplied elsewhere. However, it lacks usage context, output expectations, and any warning about provider-specific integration behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke it.

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%, and the input schema thoroughly documents every parameter including provider-specific meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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') and a specific resource ('device posture integration'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update, list, get, and delete posture integrations. It is unambiguous and directly tells an agent what operation this tool performs.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tailscale_update_posture_integration or tailscale_list_posture_integrations. It does not mention prerequisites, provider setup, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the word 'create' and sibling names.

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

Install Server

Other Tools