workboard_create_user_toolCreate a new WorkBoard user by providing first name, last name, and email; optionally include a job title. Requires Data-Admin role.
Create a new WorkBoard user (requires Data-Admin role).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User's email address | ||
| last_name | Yes | User's last name | |
| first_name | Yes | User's first name | |
| designation | No | User's job title or designation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / designation / descriptionAdded value: +"User's job title or designation"Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"User's email address"Input schema / properties / first_name / descriptionAdded value: +"User's first name"Input schema / properties / last_name / descriptionAdded value: +"User's last name"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required Data-Admin role, but says nothing about duplicate-email handling, idempotency, or what is created/side effects — meaningful gaps for a 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the permission constraint. Zero filler and nothing displaced.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. The only shortfall is the lack of duplicate/conflict behavior for a create operation with no annotations, which keeps it just under complete.
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 coverage is 100%, with every property (email, first_name, last_name, designation) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 WorkBoard user'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/mutate tools (get_user, list_users, update_user). It stops short of naming an alternative or scope boundary, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 parenthetical '(requires Data-Admin role)' gives a real eligibility precondition, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over update_user, or what to do if the user already exists, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.