Create a new Sitecore user by providing an identity, with optional email, password, full name, profile, and enabled status for access management.
Creates a new Sitecore user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the unprojected .NET object graph. Very large (100,000+ chars/item); diagnostics only. | |
| No | |||
| comment | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| fullName | No | ||
| identity | Yes | ||
| password | No | ||
| portrait | No | ||
| profileItemId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention required permissions, duplicate-handling behavior, password policies, or any side effects, so it provides no behavioral context beyond what annotations already supply.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally clean and gets straight to the point, though its extreme brevity for a 9-parameter creation tool makes it minimally informative rather than optimally sized.
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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, only 1 required, low schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations), the description is far too sparse. It omits usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly beyond its basic purpose.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters with only 11% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention a single parameter. It does not clarify the required identity, the roles of email, password, enabled, fullName, comment, or the diagnostic 'full' parameter, leaving all parameter semantics unexplained.
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 states a specific verb (Creates) and resource (Sitecore user), making the tool's intent clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like security-new-role, security-new-domain, or security-import-account, which would require the agent to infer the distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as security-import-account, security-set-user, or security-new-role. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.