Cria um registro (ou vários) de um objeto. Passe object (ex.: 'contact', 'deal') e data (objeto JSON com os campos por key). Para vários, use records (array JSON de {data}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| records | No | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a write operation. The description adds context about the data format (JSON object/array) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like idempotency, return value, or error behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations exist, but it doesn't exceed them much.
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, concise, front-loaded with the verb, and provides examples inline. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff or repetition.
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 create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case (object + data/records) but omits account and metadata. It also lacks information about return values or error handling. While not overly complex, the incomplete parameter coverage prevents a higher score.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'object', 'data' (JSON object), and 'records' (JSON array), adding meaning beyond schema's plain strings. However, 'account' and 'metadata' are not explained, leaving gaps. Overall, it adds value for the core parameters but isn't fully comprehensive.
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 creates one or multiple records of an object, using the verb 'Cria' (creates) and specifying the resource (object). It distinguishes itself from update/delete/get by the explicit create action, and even provides example object names like 'contact' and 'deal'.
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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: for a single record, pass 'object' and 'data'; for multiple, use 'records'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its use case (create vs. update/delete).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.