Create a new API token to authenticate with the server. Specify a name and optional expiration; the token secret is shown only once.
Create a new API token. API token required. The token secret is shown only once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the token (e.g., 'GitHub Actions') | |
| expires_in_days | No | Number of days until the token expires |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that an API token is required to call the tool and that the token secret is shown only once, both valuable operational details. It does not, however, describe other side effects, persistence, or response behavior.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, and each remaining sentence adds relevant caveats. It is tightly front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 low-complexity with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the response contains beyond hinting the secret is shown once. The auth requirement and one-time secret are useful, but return value and any token constraints remain 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 100%, so the schema already documents name and expires_in_days and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with 'Create a new API token', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. The word 'new' marks it as a creation action, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tokens, update_token, and delete_token.
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 for when to create a token versus updating or deleting one, and no alternatives are named. The only context is the action itself, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.