Restore a suspended user's access to the tailnet, re-enabling their permissions and connectivity.
Restore a previously suspended user, re-granting them access to the tailnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user ID to restore |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true (safe to retry) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 're-granting access', confirming it is a non-destructive mutation. However, it does not elaborate on side effects like permission restoration or behavior if the user is already active. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.
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 sentence of 10 words, directly stating the purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and highly concise, meeting the standard for efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and informative annotations including idempotentHint), the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about return value or edge cases (e.g., user not suspended), but for a straightforward restore operation, the provided information is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'userId' described as 'The user ID to restore'. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
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 action ('Restore'), the target ('previously suspended user'), and the effect ('re-granting them access to the tailnet'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tailscale_suspend_user and tailscale_delete_user by specifying the restoration of a suspended user.
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 implies usage for restoring a suspended user but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or differentiate from alternatives like tailscale_approve_user or tailscale_resend_user_invite. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.