Create a new group in a Hex workspace and add user members, enabling AI assistants to organize workspace access via the Hex API.
Create a new group in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group name | |
| members | No | { users: [{ id: '...' }] } |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether this requires admin rights, whether the group name must be unique, whether members are optional, or what happens on duplicate names. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's mutation semantics.
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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a nested members object, it should say more about the member format and expected return.
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 description coverage is 100% with 2 parameters, so the schema already documents 'name' and the nested members shape. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new group'), which clearly distinguishes it from hex-list-groups, hex-get-group, hex-edit-group and hex-delete-group. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the CRUD verb makes the intent unambiguous.
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 use this versus hex-edit-group or hex-delete-group, no prerequisites, and no note about required permissions. The description gives only what the name already implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.