providers_clients_createCreates a client for a specified provider using a provider ID, name, and audience, enabling access management through UseGrant.
Create Client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| audience | Yes | ||
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds zero behavioral context — nothing about duplicate-name behavior, failure modes, or what gets created, despite idempotentHint=false hinting at non-repeatable side effects.
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?
It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness: two words that merely echo the title carry no informational payload. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope.
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?
For a 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It gives the agent nothing to determine correct invocation or expectations.
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 only 33% (only providerId has a description), and the description supplies no meaning for the undocumented 'name' and 'audience' parameters. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it does not — no explanation of what 'audience' represents or the purpose of the name constraints.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (the required providerId, name, audience are only visible in the schema), or how it relates to alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when this is the right call versus a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.