Skip to main content
Glama

Create a document or folder

doc_create

Create something that is not there yet. Commits at once if your grant allows it and is refused if it does not; nothing is overwritten. If the top-level folder does not exist and you may create folders, it is created and you become its manager. The answer says what it created, names any new directory (a typo in folder_path makes one), lists what each [[Name]] link resolved to, and carries the node id and a console link. Frontmatter (type, tags, aliases) between --- lines at the top of content drives search; access comes from grants on the folders, never from frontmatter. Actions — document: a document in a folder (folder_path, name, content); refused when one is already there. folder: a folder (folder_path), which you then manage. As its manager you can also share it with access_grant action=share.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNodocument: the document name, e.g. "Q3 summary.md". Cannot contain "/" — put folders in folder_path instead. END IT IN .md unless you mean otherwise: only .md and .mdx render in the console, and anything else opens as plain text with no way to switch. Nothing is appended for you.
actionYeswhat to do; each action takes the arguments its line names
contentNodocument: the whole document. Set metadata with YAML frontmatter at the top of `content`: `type` (one of: meeting-notes, playbook, spec, brand-asset, web-clip, contract, misc — anything else becomes misc), `title`, `summary`, and `tags` as a list. `tags` is the write-side spelling of what the listing tools call `label`. `status` takes `active` or `inactive` and is not a label: `inactive` retires a document — it stays in the folder and stays openable in the console, but agents stop retrieving it. Omit it unless you mean to retire something. `aliases` (a list, or one name) are other names search how=titles finds the document by; a [[link]] still needs its file name or title. Any other key you write (`sources`, …) is kept as written and comes back on read; key order may change. A block that does not parse as YAML is refused, naming the line, and nothing is written: quote a value that contains ": " (summary: "a: b").
folder_pathNodocument: folder names, outermost first, e.g. ["handbook","policies"]; at least one, since documents go in a folder · folder: folder names, outermost first, e.g. ["product-docs"] or ["product-docs","specs"]
idempotency_keyNoAny unique string you choose for this write, e.g. a UUID. If you retry the call with the same key and the same arguments, the first answer is returned and nothing is done twice. Reusing a key for a different request is refused. Keys are kept 24 hours.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNothe answer as prose, for an action that answers in prose
actionYesthe action that answered

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description adds substantial context: commit-immediately-if-granted semantics, refusal on existing nodes, no overwrite, automatic top-level folder creation with manager rights, and how grants (not frontmatter) drive access. This is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The core behavior is front-loaded, then the per-action breakdown follows. It is a long block with dense parenthetical asides (e.g. 'a typo in folder_path makes one'), but every sentence carries operational content rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with a rich schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behaviors and action semantics thoroughly. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 the property descriptions are themselves highly detailed (frontmatter keys, name suffix rules, idempotency behavior), so the description mostly restates what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries nearly all parameter meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource (create a document or folder) and defines the two actions explicitly. It implicitly distinguishes from doc_update via 'nothing is overwritten' and 'refused when one is already there,' but never names the sibling that handles the overwrite case, so the routing contrast is inferable rather than explicit.

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 gives clear context for each action: documents need a folder and are refused if one exists; folders may be auto-created when permitted, making the caller a manager. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources