MarkupBase

create_document

Idempotent

Create an empty Markdown or HTML artifact owned by this principal. Visibility defaults to private and comments default to signed-in users; no source version is published. Use publish_version with expectedLatestVersionId null to publish the first version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Human-readable artifact title.
`sourceType`	Yes	Source format fixed for every version of this artifact.
`visibility`	No	Initial visibility of the new artifact.	private
`commentPolicy`	No	Who may comment on the new artifact.	authenticated
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Stable unique key for this intended change; reuse only to retry the same inputs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`ownerId`	Yes
`canManage`	Yes
`createdAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp.
`createdBy`	Yes
`updatedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp.
`sourceType`	Yes	Source format used by every version of the artifact.
`visibility`	Yes	Artifact visibility: private, link-accessible unlisted, or public.
`versionCount`	Yes
`commentPolicy`	Yes	Who may add comments: nobody, invited reviewers, signed-in users, or anyone.
`createdByName`	Yes
`createdByType`	Yes
`latestVersionId`	Yes
`openThreadCount`	Yes
`settingsUpdatedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp.
`settingsUpdatedBy`	Yes
`createdOnBehalfOfId`	Yes
`createdOnBehalfOfName`	Yes
`settingsUpdatedByName`	Yes
`settingsUpdatedByType`	Yes
`settingsUpdatedOnBehalfOfId`	Yes
`settingsUpdatedOnBehalfOfName`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing defaults (private visibility, signed-in comments), ownership by principal, and the fact that no source version is published. These are meaningful side effects not fully captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and defaults; the second provides crucial cross-tool guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter schemas, the description fully covers the behavioral context: what is created, defaults, ownership, and how to proceed to publish a version. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds contextual info about defaults and the absence of a published version, but does not further explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool creates an empty Markdown or HTML artifact owned by the principal, specifying the resource type and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like publish_version by noting that no source version is published initially.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use publish_version with expectedLatestVersionId null to publish the first version, providing clear alternative usage. This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate versus a sibling.

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

All MarkupBase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: comment creation vs. reply, review request vs. completion, thread status vs. comment, document read vs. list. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities, and descriptions clarify precise usage.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_comment, complete_review, create_document, get_document, list_documents, list_review_inbox, list_threads, publish_version, reply_to_thread, request_review, set_thread_status). whoami deviates slightly but is a standard, recognizable exception.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the optimal 3-15 range and appropriately covers the document/review/thread domain without bloat or excessive abstraction. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle is covered: document creation/reading/versioning, review request/completion/inbox, and thread create/reply/status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit document deletion or metadata update, but these do not hinder primary review workflows.

Resources

Need Help?