edgegap_authorize_relay_userAuthorize a late-joining player by public IP on an existing relay session and return their authorization token.
Authorize one more player (by public IP) on an existing relay session, for a player joining after the session was created. Returns that player's authorization token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_ip | Yes | Public IP of the joining player. | |
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that a token is returned and that the operation augments an existing session, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., unknown session_id) or any IP validation behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return value. No filler or restatement of the title.
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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return value (authorization token) and the operational context. Only error/edge-case behavior (invalid or expired session) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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 50%: user_ip is documented ('Public IP of the joining player') but session_id has no schema description. The description's phrase 'existing relay session' and 'by public IP' loosely map to the two params but add no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (authorize), resource (player/relay session), and the exact scope: adding a player to an already-created session. This clearly differentiates it from edgegap_create_relay_session (initial creation) and edgegap_get/delete_relay_session.
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?
Gives a precise usage condition: 'for a player joining after the session was created.' This implies the alternative is session creation, but it never names edgegap_create_relay_session explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.