Housewarden

Add member

add_member

Add a person to your household as an adult or child by providing a name and role, with an optional 4-8 digit PIN for secure access.

Instructions

Adds a person to the household as an adult or a child. Needs a name and a role; a 4–8 digit PIN is optional.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pin`	No	Optional 4–8 digit PIN, stored hashed.
`name`	Yes	The person's name, unique in the household.
`role`	Yes	adult or child.
`member`	No	Who is asking, if known: a member id or name. Used for per-member policies and the audit trail.
`dry_run`	No	When true, return the preview only. Nothing is written and nothing is queued.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-chosen key. Repeating a call with the same key returns the original outcome instead of acting twice.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds that the member is added as adult/child. However, it does not mention behavioral details such as unique-name enforcement, PIN hashing, dry-run behavior, or idempotency, which are relevant beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the most important requirements. It is efficient, though it slightly duplicates schema information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the full parameter descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for a straightforward add operation. It does not explain optional parameters like dry_run or idempotency_key, but those are well-covered by the schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description only restates the required fields and PIN optionality, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Adds' and the specific resource: a person to the household. It also distinguishes from sibling add tools by specifying 'adult or a child' and household membership.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies use when adding a member to a household and notes the required name/role and optional PIN. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for the main use case.

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