mcp-cloudron

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('Create'), specifies password requirements (length and character types), indicates it's atomic, and states the return behavior ('Returns 201 Created with user object'). However, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by password rules and return behavior in a single, efficient sentence. Every element (atomic operation, password specs, return code) serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by covering the write operation, password rules, and return code. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or the structure of the returned user object, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with 3 required parameters.

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 all parameters (email, password, role) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value by restating password requirements and hinting at role assignment, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the specific action ('Create a new user'), the target resource ('on the Cloudron instance'), and includes the key feature 'with role assignment (atomic operation)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cloudron_list_users (which lists users) and cloudron_get_status (which checks status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for creating users, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing users), or refer to sibling tools like cloudron_list_users for checking existing users first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.