Creates a user in Concrete CMS by submitting username, email, password, and language details.
Adds a user object.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "add-user"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| language | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| username | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-alpha.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether a password must be supplied, what happens on duplicate email/username, whether an email is sent, or what permissions are required for a mutation of this kind.
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 short, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing to front-load because essentially no information is conveyed.
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?
For a four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero documented parameters, the description supplies none of the missing context. An agent cannot tell from this definition what a valid call looks like or what it will get back.
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% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (email, language, password, username). Critically, required parameters is 0, which is counterintuitive for a create operation, and neither the schema nor the description clarifies which fields are effectively mandatory.
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?
"Adds a user object" restates the tool name and annotation title with no additional specificity. It does name a verb and a resource, but it gives no scope, no indication of what a "user object" comprises, and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like add-group or add-file.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add-group or the update/delete user siblings. Only the barest implied usage (create a user) can be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.