Perform confirmed LDAP user write operations—create, modify, or delete user entries—using user code and confirmation tokens.
LDAP user operations (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| user_code | No | ||
| confirm_token | No | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain what the confirmation flow entails, what side effects occur, or what happens to existing LDAP users. The behavior is only partially transparent.
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 very short and front-loaded with the key fact that it is a write operation requiring confirmation. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information.
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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'param' should contain, how the confirmation token works, or what the tool's effect is. The sibling context suggests LDAP management, but the description alone is insufficient.
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 description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema shows 'param' is required and there are optional fields like user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id, but their meaning is entirely undocumented. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.
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 'LDAP user operations (write — requires confirmation)' is vague. It does not specify a concrete verb or resource beyond 'operations', and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ldap_view or ldap_set. The parenthetical hints at write behavior but the core action is unclear.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes ldap_view and ldap_set, but the description does not mention them or explain when ldap_user is appropriate. The only hint is 'write — requires confirmation', which implies a mutation context but is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.