Creates a Semaphore UI user through the management API's POST /users endpoint, accepting body fields for username, email, password, admin, alert, and external status.
Creates a user. POST /users. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API endpoint and a field-format constraint, but does not mention required permissions, duplicate-user behavior, or what happens on failure. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 three short sentences and front-loads the key action and endpoint. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.
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 destructive user-creation mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, validation expectations, duplicate handling, response behavior, and the meaning of the nested body fields.
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 single body parameter contains seven nested fields with no individual descriptions. The description only says to supply API fields in the body and that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings; it does not explain field meanings, required combinations, or password handling.
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 and resource: 'Creates a user.' It is clearly distinct from update_user and delete_user by name and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings beyond the obvious create operation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use create_user versus update_user, list_users, or get_user. It simply states that it creates a user and the HTTP endpoint, leaving selection between sibling tools implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.