create_permissionCreate a permission for a resource path such as /v1/users. The permission is automatically scoped to the token's tenant, ensuring tenant isolation.
Crea un permiso. El idScope se fuerza al tenant del token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nombre del permiso (path del recurso, ej. /v1/users) | |
| extra | No | ||
| idScope | No | ID del scope (si se omite, usa el tenant del token) | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the creation side effect and the important scoping behavior (idScope forced to token tenant), but it does not mention authentication requirements, duplicate handling, or error behavior.
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 short, direct, and front-loaded with the purpose. The additional note about idScope is concise and provides meaningful behavioral context without unnecessary detail.
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?
The description covers the core creation action and the idScope override, but it lacks guidance about the expected result, the meaning of extra and description, and any constraints beyond the idScope behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete.
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 descriptions cover only name and idScope. The extra and description parameters are not described in the schema or the tool description, leaving 50% of parameters undocumented and no compensating explanation.
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 clearly states 'Crea un permiso' (creates a permission), identifying the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_permission, delete_permission, list_permissions, and import_permissions.
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 clear context: use this to create a permission. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using import_permissions for bulk creation, but the intent is unambiguous from the title and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.