Skip to main content
Glama

expedients_create

Crea un expediente (asunto/caso). Puedes fijar el próximo evento con nextActionDate y/o el vencimiento con dueDate, y activar la notificación por email con notify:true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "expedients_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
notifyNoActivar aviso por email de vencimiento/próxima actuación
statusNo
dueDateNoFecha de vencimiento YYYY-MM-DD
folderIdNo
descriptionNo
nextActionDateNoFecha del próximo evento YYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining mutation behavior. It notes that notify:true sends an email and that dates represent the next event and due date, but it omits permissions, required title, status defaults, folder assignment, duplicate handling, and response behavior.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause adds some direct information about creation or optional fields, with no filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It covers creation and three optional fields but omits the required title parameter, the status enum, folderId, and basic return or error expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It repeats the schema meanings for nextActionDate, dueDate, and notify, but leaves title, status, folderId, and description unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Crea un expediente (asunto/caso)". The parenthetical clarifies the domain, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as expedients_update or issues_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related creation or update tools. The description only lists a few optional creation fields, leaving the choice between alternatives implicit.

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