Create a new community on Compoid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| website | No | ||
| visibility | No | public | |
| description | No | ||
| member_policy | No | open | |
| record_policy | No | open | |
| community_type | No | ||
| curation_policy | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the creation act. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, validation of slug/title, or effects on existing data. With no annotation support, this falls short of the burden to explain side effects.
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 concise sentence with no superfluous wording. It is front-loaded with the action, but given the tool's complexity, brevity alone does not make it well-structured.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 9 parameters, none described, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal statement of purpose, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding and usage context, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It does not explain required fields, defaults, or format expectations, so the agent has no additional semantic guidance.
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 community on Compoid, using the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'community'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Compoid_create_record and Compoid_update_community.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating an existing community or searching communities. It lacks any context for prerequisites or conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (create/get/update/search for communities and records, plus upload/download for files). No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_record_details and download_files are clearly separated by metadata vs file retrieval.
All tools follow a consistent 'Compoid_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_community, get_record_details, search_records. The prefix and verb-noun structure are uniform across the entire set, making the naming predictable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing two core resources (communities and records) plus file operations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate rather than bloated or thin.
The server provides create, read, update, and search for both communities and records, along with upload and download for files. The only notable gap is the absence of delete operations for either resource, but the core lifecycle (search, create, retrieve, update) is well covered.