Add a new applicable operation to a securable type. Provide either the type ID or name; names must be unique. Requires Security permission.
Add a new Applicable Operation. Provide securableTypeId OR securableTypeName (not both). Names must be unique per type. Requires 'Security' permission on 'Security'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| securableTypeId | No | ||
| securableTypeName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key authorization requirement and a uniqueness constraint, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It stops short of describing success/failure behavior or side effects, but the most important guardrails are present.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The action, key constraints, and permission requirement are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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 description covers authorization, uniqueness, and type identification, which are essential for a create call. But with no output schema, it does not explain return values or error behavior, and the optionality ambiguity around securableTypeId/securableTypeName remains unresolved.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify parameters, and it does explain the either/or relationship between securableTypeId and securableTypeName plus the uniqueness rule. However, it leaves ambiguity: the schema only requires name, yet the wording 'Provide securableTypeId OR securableTypeName' could imply one of them is mandatory without explicitly saying so.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new Applicable Operation.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its delete/get siblings without needing to inspect schemas.
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 'Provide securableTypeId OR securableTypeName (not both)' constraint gives concrete input guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the Add verb and the per-type uniqueness rule make the intended usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.