lexq_versions_createCreate a new DRAFT version in a policy group. Optionally provide a commit message and effective date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | Policy group ID | |
| effectiveTo | No | Effective end date (ISO 8601) | |
| commitMessage | No | Commit message describing this version | |
| effectiveFrom | No | Effective start date (ISO 8601) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / groupId / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "groupId",
- "commitMessage"
-]New value: +[
+ "groupId"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create' aligns with that. It adds the 'DRAFT' state and optional effective date range context, but it does not disclose what happens to existing versions or whether the draft has any side effects without contradictions.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Create a new DRAFT version'), then notes optional inputs. Every phrase carries meaning; no filler 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks return-value expectations, draft lifecycle, and any explanation of side effects. Schema and annotations cover formats and safety, so it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description loosely groups 'commit message and effective date range' into prose but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new DRAFT version in a policy group'), and the 'DRAFT' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from sibling version tools like lexq_versions_clone, delete, update, get, and list. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 implies usage when a new draft version is needed and mentions optional commit message/effective date range, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as lexq_versions_clone, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.