base_account_enable_userEnable a disabled employee account on Base.vn to restore access. This tool reactivates deactivated user accounts for continued collaboration.
Kích hoạt lại (enable) tài khoản nhân viên đã bị vô hiệu hóa trên Base Account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the high-level effect (reactivating a disabled account), but does not mention permissions required, reversibility, idempotency, side effects, or what happens if the account is already active. This is thin for a mutating operation.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The tool is simple and the core action is conveyed, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: parameter semantics, access requirements, behavior for already-enabled accounts, and expected response are all unspecified.
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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention username or access_token at all. While 'username' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'access_token' and its optionality are left entirely 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 clearly identifies the action (enable/reactivate), the resource (user account on Base Account), and the relevant condition (previously disabled). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and is distinct from the sibling disable_user tool, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The condition 'account that was disabled' implies usage context, but no clear exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.