Assign a complete business access package atomically to a subject, with reason, optional TTL, and dry-run support. Requires admin permission.
Assign a complete business access package atomically. Requires access:admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| ttl_days | No | ||
| package_key | Yes | ||
| subject_key | Yes | ||
| subject_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses two behaviorally relevant traits beyond the annotations: the operation is atomic and requires access:admin. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or that dry_run defaults to true, which is a notable omission for an admin mutation tool.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the admin permission requirement is provided as useful supplementary information.
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?
Despite having an output schema Alert, the tool has six parameters, four required, and zero schema descriptions. A complete description would clarify required parameter semanticsroutes, especially subject_type values, the dry_run default behavior, and how package grants compare to scope/resource grants. Current description is too sparse for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It clarifies that package_key refers to a business access packageaging package, but it does not explain subject_type, subject_key, reason, dry_run, or ttl_days. This leaves agents unable to determine valid parameter values.
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 uses a specific verb ('Assign'), a clear resource ('complete business access package'), and a distinctive trait ('atomically'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gateway_admin_grant_scope and gateway_admin_grant_resource, which operate on narrower access units.
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 phrase 'complete business access package' implies this is for package-level grants rather than scopes or resources, so usage context is indirectly conveyed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_admin_grant_scope, gateway_admin_grant_resource, or gateway_admin_revoke_access_package.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.