ClearPolicy

Create Document Revision Tool

create-document-revision-tool

Idempotent

Create a new draft revision for an existing document (for example after a version was published). If a draft already exists, returns that draft instead. File-based documents (PDF/Drive) cannot be edited as rich text via ChatGPT — use the web app.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	No	Optional short summary for the draft revision.
`document_id`	Yes	The ULID of the document.
`body_markdown`	No	Optional Markdown body for the new draft. If omitted, copies the previous rich-text content when available.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`created`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / revision / properties / lock_version
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / revision / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "document_id",
-  "status",
-  "source_type",
-  "content_markdown",
-  "content_text",
-  "is_empty",
-  "resource_uri",
-  "app_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "lock_version",
+  "document_id",
+  "status",
+  "source_type",
+  "content_markdown",
+  "content_text",
+  "is_empty",
+  "resource_uri",
+  "app_url"
+]

AddedJul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the exact idempotent behavior ('If a draft already exists, returns that draft instead') and a document-type limitation. It omits permission/auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each carrying distinct value (purpose, idempotency, limitation). No filler, though the third sentence is slightly tangential to invocation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's non-destructive, idempotent nature plus a real usage constraint. Complete enough for a 3-param create tool, missing only auth/permission context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g., body_markdown copying prior content).

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('new draft revision for an existing document'), and the qualifier 'draft' cleanly separates it from create-document-tool and publish-document-revision-tool. An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

It supplies clear context ('for example after a version was published') and an explicit exclusion with an alternative ('File-based documents (PDF/Drive) cannot be edited as rich text via ChatGPT — use the web app'). It doesn't name sibling revision tools, but the when/when-not coverage is strong.

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

All ClearPolicy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?