Skip to main content
Glama

Create account document type

create-account-document-type

Create a new custom document type for the account.

Use this tool when:

  • The user asks for a new kind of document to be distinguished, e.g. "add a Framework Agreement document type"

  • A document or template needs a document type that the account does not have yet

Call list-account-document-types first: fynk already provides system document types such as "Non-Disclosure Agreement", "Rental Agreement" or "Service Agreement" to every account, and a custom type that duplicates one of them splits the account's documents across two types. Create a new type only when none of the existing ones fits.

Write name in Title Case, the way fynk's own types are named ("Data Processing Agreement", "Letter of Intent"), rather than copying the user's phrasing verbatim - a request for "a type for supplier framework contracts" should produce "Supplier Framework Agreement".

description and prompt are how a new type is normally set up, so propose both from what the type is for rather than leaving them out:

  • description tells users what the type covers, in one sentence. fynk's "Rental Agreement" reads: "A contract between a landlord and tenant defining the terms under which property is rented, including duration, payment terms, and usage conditions."

  • prompt is what fynk's AI analyses read when deciding whether a document is of this type - without one, they rarely pick the type. Phrase it as a selection criterion, the way fynk's own types do. "Rental Agreement" reads: "Select this type if the document defines the terms under which a tenant rents property from a landlord, including rent amount, duration, deposit, and usage conditions."

relevant_metadata_uuids decides which metadata fields fynk's AI analyses look for in documents of this type, besides the fields already relevant for every document type, which apply to the new type automatically. Call list-account-metadata to find the candidates, and propose the fields that type's documents would carry, e.g. a "Net Rent" field for a lease type. The fields chosen here are made relevant for the new type alongside the types they already have, and list-account-metadata reports the result: each field there names the document types it is relevant for.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the document type, unique among the account's custom document types, in Title Case (max 255 characters), e.g. "Supplier Framework Agreement"
promptNoSelection criterion the AI analyses use to decide whether a document is of this type (max 1024 characters), phrased like "Select this type if the document ..."
descriptionNoOne sentence describing what the document type covers, shown to users (max 1024 characters)
relevant_metadata_uuidsNoUuids from list-account-metadata of the fields to make relevant for this document type, on top of the fields already relevant for every document type. Only the account's own fields and system_reference fields are accepted

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of the document type
uuidNoIdentifier for the document type. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
promptNoThe selection criterion fynk's AI analyses use to decide whether a document is of this type. Absent when it has none, in which case the analyses rarely pick the type.
customisedNoPresent, and true, only for a system document type that this account has customised. The customisation can be dropped again with update-account-document-type and `reset_to_fynk_default`
descriptionNoWhat the document type covers, as shown to users configuring it. Absent when it has none.
_entity_typeNoOnly relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user
provided_by_fynkNoPresent, and true, only for one of fynk's built-in system document types. The account can customise or deactivate such a type but never delete it. Absent for a type the account created itself

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that, notably that relevant_metadata_uuids are made relevant for the new type *alongside* the types they already have (an account-wide side effect), and that system types already exist on every account. It stops short of describing reversibility or duplicate-name failure behavior.

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 one-line purpose, then when-to-use, then the prerequisite, then per-parameter guidance — a good structure for a 4-parameter creation tool. It is verbose though, with illustrative quotes for both description and prompt, and the closing clause about list-account-metadata reporting relevance borders on extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a creation tool with rich free-text parameters, the description covers naming conventions, AI-selection semantics, cross-tool prereqs, and the downstream relevance effect — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds substantial meaning: Title Case naming conventions with worked examples ('a type for supplier framework contracts' → 'Supplier Framework Agreement'), the selection-criterion phrasing expected for prompt, and the semantics and constraints of relevant_metadata_uuids (only account-owned and system_reference fields, sourced from list-account-metadata).

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 ('Create a new custom document type for the account') and immediately separates itself from siblings by naming list-account-document-types and describing the pre-existing system types. An agent can distinguish this from update- or delete-account-document-type 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use bullets, names the prerequisite call ('Call list-account-document-types first'), and gives an exclusion rule ('Create a new type only when none of the existing ones fits'). It also routes to list-account-metadata for candidate metadata fields, which is unambiguous 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