Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs), but doesn't contradict annotations. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.

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 tool's low complexity (list operation), rich annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by hinting at output format or filtering behavior, but it adequately conveys the tool's intent without being overly verbose.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'specific user' aligning with userId but adds no further semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('role grants for a specific user'), specifying it shows assigned roles. It distinguishes from general user listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'zitadel_list_users' or 'zitadel_list_project_roles' in terms of scope.

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 implies usage when needing to see a user's assigned roles, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'zitadel_get_user' for basic info or 'zitadel_list_project_roles' for role definitions. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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