Skip to main content
Glama

esyURL

Create group

create_group

Create a group to organise short links (e.g. a campaign or a venue). Groups are many-to-many: a link can be in up to 20 groups. Add links with add_links_to_group, or pass groupIds when creating/updating a link.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesGroup name, up to 100 chars
colorNoHex colour for UIs, e.g. #3366ff
descriptionNoUp to 500 chars

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the many-to-many relationship model and the 20-group limit, which is genuine domain context. But it omits permission requirements, name-uniqueness/duplicate behavior, and what is returned (e.g. a group ID), leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose followed by the relationship model and the linking alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 1-required, 3-param creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain model, and the follow-up workflow well. It could be more complete by noting the return value or duplicate-name behavior, but it is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, color, description) are already documented with length and format hints in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a group') and immediately scopes what it's for ('to organise short links, e.g. a campaign or a venue'). Names siblings (add_links_to_group, groupIds on link create/update) so an agent can distinguish this tool from related write operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use add_links_to_group or pass groupIds when creating/updating a link to attach links to the new group. This is clear context for when to use this tool versus the association tools, though it doesn't state prerequisites or when not to create a group.

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.