Create a connection credential for OpenWISP devices with a name and optional username/password to authenticate devices for network management.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Create a connection credential. (HTTP POST /api/v1/connection/credential/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Credential name | |
| password | No | Password or secret | |
| username | No | Username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only supplies the HTTP method and endpoint. It does not state permission/auth requirements, whether the credential is bound to a device or organization, or whether secrets are write-only or retrievable.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the verb+resource leading and the endpoint detail trailing. Efficient overall, though the category prefix and raw HTTP path are marginally redundant for an agent.
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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what is returned, what scope the credential belongs to, or what errors/permissions apply. The fully documented 3-param schema keeps it at merely adequate rather than inadequate.
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% – name is required, and username/password are documented in the schema – so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating the resource, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a connection credential', which is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling operations like update_credential or list_credentials. It lacks explicit contrast with siblings, but the verb-resource pairing is clear.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for creating a credential. The bracketed category tag is a taxonomy label, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.