create_portal_hostAuthenticated tool for creating a stable portal host with OIDC sign-in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes | ||
| nameClaim | No | ||
| emailClaim | No | ||
| oidcIssuer | Yes | ||
| oidcScopes | No | ||
| oidcClientId | Yes | ||
| recipientClaim | No | ||
| oidcClientSecret | Yes | ||
| allowedEmailDomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool is 'authenticated,' which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format, side effects, or dependencies. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation and non-destructive.
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, which is too short for a tool with 10 parameters. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no param descriptions), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a portal host is, the role of OIDC, or what the tool returns.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. It fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names and types.
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 the tool creates a portal host with OIDC sign-in, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_portal_session. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions authentication, not any contextual triggers or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.