Create a tileset 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_tileset"
}
}| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain why a create operation is flagged destructive (e.g., overwriting an existing tileset with the same name), nor whether template IDs must exist, nor what permissions are required. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added value.
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 tight sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves substantive gaps rather than wasted words.
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 mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions; the description should explain the destructive behavior, the name argument, and how to source template IDs. Given that complexity, one sentence is insufficient.
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%, so the schema gives no meaning for either parameter. The description only hints that templateId refers to a template, without saying how to obtain valid IDs (e.g., via 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Create a tileset") plus the source of creation ("from a template ID"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as create_template or get_default_tileset, which prevents a 5.
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 guidance on when to create a tileset from a template versus starting from a default (get_default_tileset) or a template (create_template). No prerequisites, no mention of what happens on duplicate names, and no exclusions are stated.
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.