create_admin_usersCreate One
Create One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| admin | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| group | No | ||
| advanced | No | ||
| fullName | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| canInvite | No | ||
| canManage | No | ||
| household | No | ||
| authMethod | No | ||
| canOrganize | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| showAnnouncements | No | ||
| canManageHousehold | No | ||
| lastReadAnnouncement | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.29.0Input schema / properties / authMethod / enumPrevious value: -[
- "Mealie",
- "LDAP",
- "OIDC"
-]New value: +[
+ "Mealie",
+ "LDAP",
+ "OIDC",
+ "ReverseProxy"
+]v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mention that this is an admin-only mutation, that it sets a password, that it may fail on duplicate username/email, or what the response contains. For a privileged account-creation endpoint this is a serious 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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — two words that convey no usable information and are not even front-loaded with a resource noun.
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?
Given 17 parameters, no annotations, and a privileged write operation, the description should explain required fields and permission scoping. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but almost everything else an agent needs is missing.
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?
Seventeen parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Critical fields like authMethod (enum Mealie/LDAP/OIDC/ReverseProxy), the can*/admin permission flags, group and household references are left entirely unexplained, so the agent must guess their semantics.
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?
"Create One" restates the verb of the tool name but never names the resource (admin users) or the scope. It is essentially a tautology against the title "Create Admin Users," and an agent gets no information about what entity is actually being created.
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 instead of siblings such as create_users_register or update_admin_users_by_item, nor any stated prerequisites (admin privileges required, uniqueness constraints). Nothing routes the agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.