Create a new Compoid record (images, videos, papers, articles, analysis).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| creators | Yes | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| references | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| file_upload | Yes | ||
| community_id | Yes | ||
| resource_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and record types without mentioning side effects, required prerequisites (e.g., existing community), permissions, reversibility, or the role of file_upload. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
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 that is easy to parse. It front-loads the primary action and includes an informative parenthetical. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem. It earns every word.
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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), the description is severely inadequate. It lacks critical context such as how to construct a valid record, the relationship between file_upload and the record, or any guidance on required fields. The presence of an output schema is helpful but does not offset the missing usage context.
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 covers 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations for parameter usage. The description fails to compensate; it does not explain community_id, file_upload, creators, resource_type, or any other parameter. The only vague hint is the record types, but this is insufficient for understanding the required inputs.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Compoid record'. It also lists the content types (images, videos, papers, articles, analysis), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_record and create_community. Despite not explicitly referencing alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.
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 implies usage for creating new records, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like upload_file or update_record. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list. This is implied usage rather than direct guidance.
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.