providers_clients_tokens_createCreates an access token for a specified provider and client, with options for expiration, JWT type, audience format, and default domain behavior.
Create Access Token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | Client ID | |
| expiresIn | No | ||
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID | |
| useJwtType | No | ||
| audienceAsArray | No | ||
| forceDefaultDomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, so the baseline burden is lower, but the description adds nothing: it does not say whether a new token secret is minted each call, whether previously issued tokens are affected, or what the token's lifetime semantics are.
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 words with zero waste but also zero information — this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded only because there is nothing else.
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 6-parameter credential-minting mutation with no output schema and three undocumented boolean switches, the description omits everything an agent needs: token format, return payload, expiration defaults, and required permissions.
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 coverage is only 33% and the two documented fields ('Client ID', 'Provider ID') are tautological. The description provides no meaning for expiresIn, useJwtType, audienceAsArray, or forceDefaultDomain, which are behaviorally significant flags an agent cannot safely set.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus providers_clients_create, providers_create, or tenants_tokens_validate. No prerequisites (credentials, provider/client existence) or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.