Skip to main content
Glama

OpenPanel: Create group

openpanel_create_group
Destructive

Create or update a company, workspace, or team group and associate it with events and profiles for organized analytics.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create or update a group (e.g., company, workspace, team). Groups can be associated with events and profiles.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "group_type": "<group_type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
group_idYes
group_typeYes
propertiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never warns that existing group data may be overwritten, nor describes permissions or side effects. The phrase 'create or update' also sits in mild tension with a non-idempotent annotation, leaving the agent unclear about what a repeat call does.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' tag adds no meaning and the second sentence is only marginally useful, but there is no real bloat.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what properties accepts, what a repeat call does, or what happens to an existing group's data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never explains site, group_id, group_type, name, or the accepted shape of properties. The only help is the parenthetical example list, which loosely hints at group_type values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create or update a group') and clarifies the resource with concrete examples (company, workspace, team). It is distinguishable from siblings such as openpanel_assign_group, though the create-vs-update duality slightly blurs what a single call does.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over openpanel_assign_group or openpanel_identify_user, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the site or group must already exist. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise rather than actionable context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools