Creates a controlled operation ticket to request credential enrollment and authorized secret export, keeping secret contents out of MCP parameters and responses.
Create a controlled operation ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to meet it. "Create" implies a mutation, yet nothing is said about side effects, whether the ticket expires, whether it must be approved by another party, or what authorization is required for the operation to be "controlled."
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but here brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. A few more clauses about sequencing and the meaning of operation_name would earn their place.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition supplies almost no information an agent needs to invoke this correctly. The relationship to execute_operation and get_operation_status, which likely consume the produced ticket, is entirely unstated.
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 has 0% schema description coverage (no description on operation_name, only length constraints), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains whether operation_name is a free-form label, must match a value from list_operations, or how it is used downstream.
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 names a verb and a resource ("Create a controlled operation ticket"), but "controlled operation ticket" is undefined jargon. An agent cannot tell from this whether the ticket is a permission request, a job handle, or an audit record, nor how it relates to siblings like execute_operation or get_operation_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus execute_operation, list_operations, or the vault_* tools. No prerequisites, no stated sequencing (e.g., prepare then execute), and no exclusions are given, leaving the agent to guess at a workflow position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.