Manage access to Tailscale services by approving or rejecting a device's request to host a service. Specify the service, device ID, and approval status to control hosting permissions.
Approve or reject a device to host a Tailscale Service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approved | Yes | Whether to approve (true) or reject (false) the device | |
| deviceId | Yes | The device ID | |
| serviceName | Yes | The service name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating the action. For instance, it does not disclose what happens when a device is rejected (e.g., service disruption) or whether prior approvals are overridden. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 that is clear and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description lacks context on what 'approve a device to host a Tailscale Service' entails, such as the implications of approval/rejection, the relationship between deviceId and serviceName, or expected outcomes. Since there is no output schema, additional description could help agents understand the result. However, the tool is relatively simple and the name is explanatory, so a 3 is fair.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), explaining approved, deviceId, and serviceName. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is justified.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'approve or reject' and the resource 'device to host a Tailscale Service'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tailscale_get_service_device_approval (which retrieves) and tailscale_authorize_device (which authorizes device for tailnet, not service hosting).
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 when to use the tool (when needing to approve/reject a device for service hosting), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like tailscale_authorize_device or tailscale_approve_user. The context from sibling tools suggests clear separation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.