Configure general user management settings on the router, with a confirmation step required to apply changes.
Set user management general setup (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 must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'write — requires confirmation', which barely hints at a write operation but does not explain what the confirmation process entails, what side effects occur (e.g., whether existing settings are overwritten), or what happens if confirmation fails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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 extremely short, consisting of a single phrase, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so it earns a 4 not a 5 because the brevity sacrifices 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?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation parameters' relationships, what 'general setup' means, or what the return value indicates. An agent has almost no chance of calling this tool correctly based solely on the provided information.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions none of them. The schema has four parameters (param, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id), but the description provides no meaning beyond their names, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call without external knowledge.
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 'Set user management general setup', which indicates a verb and a vague resource, but it is unclear what specific settings are covered and how it differs from sibling tools like 'user_account', 'user_edit', and 'user_setdefault'. The phrase 'general setup' is too ambiguous to distinguish from those siblings, and the description does not clarify the scope.
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 this tool versus the other user management tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. While it notes that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, it does not explain when this tool should be preferred over user_edit or user_setdefault, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.