tenants_tokens_validateValidates a token for a tenant and tenant provider policy, verifying whether the supplied access credentials are valid.
Validate Token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| tenantId | Yes | Tenant ID | |
| tenantProviderPolicyId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds no explanation of why a "validate" would be non-read-only or non-idempotent. It also omits error/failure semantics (e.g., is an invalid token a 200 with a false flag or an error?), which is critical for a validation tool.
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 brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — two words that carry no information beyond the tool's own name.
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-parameter required-input validation endpoint with no output schema, the description should explain inputs, expected result shape, and failure behavior. None of that is present.
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% — token and tenantProviderPolicyId have no descriptions. The description supplies no meaning for any of the three required parameters, leaving the agent unable to know what to pass for tenantProviderPolicyId.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool, what preconditions exist, or how it relates to the many sibling tenant/provider tools. The agent must guess entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.