Add a text document to a knowledge base (chunking + embedding happen synchronously; returns the real chunk count).
For **local files** (pdf/docx…) see `add_knowledge_file`.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| kb_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that chunking and embedding happen synchronously and that the return value is the real chunk count, which is valuable. However, it does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description is two sentences, directly front-loads the core action, and uses structured formatting (bold for 'text') to highlight important context. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the operation, synchronous behavior, return value, and alternative for files. It does not mention edge cases like missing knowledge bases or size limits, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and output schema existence.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides almost no parameter-specific meaning. It implicitly suggests 'content' is text, but there is no explanation of 'kb_name' or 'title' beyond their names, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.
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 clearly states the tool adds a text document to a knowledge base, with explicit mention of synchronous chunking and embedding. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'add_knowledge_file' by addressing local files separately, making its scope obvious.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by naming the alternative 'add_knowledge_file' for local files, indicating when to use this tool for text content. It also implies the appropriate context (text vs. files) without ambiguity.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.