Assign a client to a specific user group for throttling. Use the client ID and group ID to apply bandwidth restrictions.
Assign a client to a specific user group (for throttling)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The _id of the user group | |
| client_id | Yes | The _id of the client (not MAC) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the purpose (throttling) but omits important side effects: whether this overwrites an existing group assignment, whether it requires the group and client to exist, or what happens to prior throttling settings. This is a nontrivial mutating operation and the behavioral transparency is limited.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and appends a useful purposive qualifier. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.
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 low complexity (2 simple params, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details such as whether the user group must pre-exist, whether the assignment replaces any existing group, and what the result or confirmation is. These gaps could leave an agent uncertain about calling the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, except implicitly indicating that the group_id refers to a throttling group. Since the schema already documents client_id and group_id clearly, the description adds no substantial parameter-level value.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a client to a specific user group'. It clearly states the operation and target, and the parenthetical '(for throttling)' adds relevant context that distinguishes this from other client-management tools like set_client_alias or block_client.
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 context '(for throttling)' implicitly suggests this tool is for applying throttling policy via a user group, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as create_user_group or list_user_groups. No when-not conditions or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.