create_oauth_scopeCreate an OAuth scope in your current tenant to define access permissions for clients. Specify a scope name like read:users to manage authorization.
Crea un scope OAuth en el tenant del token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nombre del scope, ej. read:users | |
| extra | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it creates an OAuth scope, which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or behavior when the scope already exists.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is under-specified, so while concise, it sacrifices completeness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine the effects, requirements, or return value, making it difficult to call correctly.
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?
The input schema only describes the 'name' parameter (33% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to 'extra' or 'description', and does not clarify the expected format or semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action (creates) and resource (OAuth scope) and mentions the tenant context, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_scope or update_oauth_scope, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scope or update_oauth_scope. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.