grant_machines_addCreate a project machine grant to link a machine to an organization and project, enabling its use within that project.
Create project machine grant
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | Arbitrary key-value metadata. Maximum 16 pairs, keys up to 64 characters, values must be strings of up to 512 characters. | |
| projectID | Yes | ||
| machine_id | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain that a non-idempotent call may create duplicate grants, whether re-granting an already-granted machine errors or is a no-op, or what permissions are required.
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?
At four words it is terse and front-loaded with the verb 'Create', with no wasted sentences. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving no room for the usage or parameter context the tool needs.
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?
This is a non-idempotent mutation with 5 parameters (3 required), a nested metadata object, and no output schema. The description supplies no information about effects, duplicates, or the optional description/metadata fields, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently.
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 only 20% — only 'metadata' carries a description, while orgID, projectID, machine_id, and description are undocumented beyond regex patterns. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool with a nested metadata object.
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 'Create project machine grant' essentially restates the tool name and title 'Grant machine to project' with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like grant_machines_list, grant_machines_delete, or grant_models_add beyond the word 'machine'. It is a tautology rather than a clarifying purpose statement.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that machine and project must already exist), and no mention of the related delete/list siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.