Create a new user account with email and password, assign roles and tenant info, and select JWT or cookie authentication.
Register a new user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User email address | ||
| tenant | No | Tenant information for multi-tenant mode | |
| authMode | No | Authentication mode | jwt |
| lastName | No | User last name | |
| password | Yes | User password | |
| roleName | No | Role name to assign | |
| firstName | No | User first name | |
| inviteToken | No | Invitation token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Register a new user' only restates the core operation and adds no context about side effects, authentication behavior, invite token handling, tenant requirements, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety signals.
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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, a single sentence simply restating the action does not provide enough structure or context to guide an agent.
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 complexity—8 parameters, a nested tenant object, inviteToken, authMode, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain when registration succeeds, what happens after registration, how multi-tenant mode affects the call, or how invite tokens fit in. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description and schema.
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 every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact, such as the relationship between inviteToken and registration or between authMode and the response. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new user.' It clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from login, send invite, and verify invite. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or state its exact scope, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like baasix_login, baasix_send_invite, or baasix_verify_invite. It also does not mention scenarios such as invite-based registration, tenant setup, or authMode selection. There is no exclusion or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.