Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Xodia

by ai.xodia
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create CMS items

create_items

Creates up to 50 items in one call, each checked against the collection's fields (required, types, options, validation, references to existing items or items in this call). Items that fail are listed with their index and field problems and the others are still written: send only the failed ones again. Values never go into page code: pages show them through the CMS kit. Values by field type: plainText and richText a string (richText is Markdown; the field marked body is the item file's body), image {"src": "/images//x.webp" or https URL, "alt": "..."}, multiImage a list of those, videoLink an https URL, link an https URL, a /path, mailto: or tel:, email, phone, number a number, date "YYYY-MM-DD", dateTime an ISO date and time, switch true or false, color "#rrggbb", option the option id, file a path or URL, reference the target item's slug, multiReference a list of slugs. null or "" clears a value on update. New items are drafts unless draft is false. Writes go to the branch the workspace has open as unsaved changes the user reviews and saves in Xodia, the same as the Content tab. Works on every plan within its collection and item limits (Free: 2 collections and 100 items a site); turning a folder into a Xodia collection needs a paid plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collection": "<collection>",
      "items": "<items>",
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "create_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
branchNoOptional branch; default the branch the workspace has open
projectIdYesProject id from list_projects
collectionYesThe collection id (its folder under content/), from list_collections

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes far beyond that: per-item validation with index and field problems, non-atomic partial writes ('the others are still written'), draft-vs-publish semantics, that changes are unsaved and user-reviewed, and plan/collection limits. That is exactly the behavior an agent needs before a batch mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the batch-and-validation contract, then value formats, then environment/plan notes — a sensible order. The field-type enumeration is one very long semicolon chain, and the 'null or "" clears a value on update' clause belongs to update_item rather than a create tool, so it is slightly overlong and not perfectly scoped.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param mutation with no output schema, it covers validation, partial failure, defaults, branch targeting and limits. It does not say what a successful call returns (created item ids/slugs, count), which the agent needs to chain into follow-up calls; that is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema leaves the core payload opaque — 'values' is just 'Field id to value' with additionalProperties {} — so the description carries the real burden by enumerating value formats per field type (richText Markdown, image object shape, reference by slug, date formats, option id, switch booleans) and by noting null/"" clearing. That is substantial meaning added beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Creates up to 50 items in one call, each checked against the collection's fields'. It is immediately distinguishable from list_items, get_item, update_item and create_collection without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operating context: batch creation with partial success, re-submit only failed items, drafts by default, and writes landing on the workspace's open branch as unsaved changes. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. update_item for existing items) or states when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Xodia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources