createUserCreate a new user - Create a new user with required attributes name, email, enabled, totp (=Two-factor authentication 2FA), admin (=access to all endpoints and resources), accessAllResources and roles. You can't specify any password / secrets for the user. For security reasons the user will have to specify secrets on his own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| createUserBody | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds context by stating that no passwords or secrets can be set, which is useful behavioral information. Yet it contains misleading attributes (admin, accessAllResources) not in the schema, and does not mention what happens on success or any side effects beyond creation.
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 repeats 'Create a new user' at the start, and the attribute list is redundant and partially inaccurate. The security note is useful but phrased twice ('You can't specify...' and 'the user will have to specify secrets'). It is not concise and contains waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return value or expected response, but it does not. It also omits the required 'locale' parameter from the body and ignores the required x-request-id header. The description is incomplete for a creation tool with these structured requirements.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to mention any of the actual top-level parameters (x-request-id, x-trace-id, createUserBody). Worse, it introduces parameters like 'admin' and 'accessAllResources' that are not present in the schema, and lists 'name' while the schema uses 'firstName' and 'lastName'. This actively misleads rather than clarifies.
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 the tool creates a new user with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateUser and deleteUser. However, it inaccurately lists attributes such as 'name', 'admin', and 'accessAllResources' that do not exist in the schema, which slightly muddies the purpose.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and title: use this to create a user. The description adds a constraint that no passwords/secrets can be specified, which helps decide when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when to use this over other create tools (e.g., createRole, createInstance).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.