Create a nine-slice from a template ID.
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": {
"name": "<name>",
"templateId": "<templateId>"
},
"name": "create_nineslice"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether the template is consumed or referenced, whether an existing nine-slice with the same name is overwritten (relevant given destructiveHint=true), or what happens on failure.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is achieved by omitting information rather than by tight editing.
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?
This is a destructive, non-read-only mutation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. Given that complexity, the description is missing the essentials: parameter meaning, side effects, and the create-vs-update decision relative to update_nineslice.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions templateId only by name (no indication of where such an ID comes from, e.g. list_templates), and the required "name" parameter is never mentioned at all.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a nine-slice") and adds the source ("from a template ID"), which distinguishes it from create_template and the get_/list_nineslice siblings. It stops short of any further differentiation among the many other create_* tools, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (must a template exist first?), and no reference to alternatives such as get_default_nineslice or update_nineslice. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.
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.