Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying the key format for app-specific roles, which is behavioral context not covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'create' aligns with readOnlyHint=false, but could provide more on permissions 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a specific usage tip. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return value (e.g., the created role object), though the concise nature still supports effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning the key format for 'roleKey,' but doesn't elaborate on other parameters like 'projectId' or 'group.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new role') and resource ('in a Zitadel project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'zitadel_list_project_roles' or other creation tools like 'zitadel_create_project', leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 some usage guidance by specifying 'Use key format "app:{slug}" for app-specific access roles,' which implies when to use this format. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zitadel_list_project_roles' for viewing roles or other creation tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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