gitbook_create_change_requestCreate a new draft change request (branch) in a space. Safe: creates a draft; publishes nothing. GitBook REST: POST /spaces/{spaceId}/change-requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. | |
| subject | No | A title/subject for the change request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Safe: creates a draft; publishes nothing,' but the annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, indicating the tool may have destructive effects. Per the rubric, this scores 1 and triggers the annotation_contradiction flag.
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, front-loads the action, and includes the safety note and endpoint reference. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description gives purpose, safety, and endpoint, which is mostly sufficient. However, the contradiction between the 'Safe' claim and destructiveHint:true undermines confidence, and the description does not mention what the response will contain. A more complete description would reconcile this discrepancy.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both spaceId and subject. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating the endpoint, which includes spaceId. It does not clarify the format or usage of subject beyond its schema description, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new draft change request (branch) in a space.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_change_request' and 'list_change_requests' by specifying 'draft' and 'publishes nothing'. The REST endpoint further clarifies the exact operation.
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 clear context on when to use the tool (creating a draft change request) and includes the safety note 'Safe: creates a draft; publishes nothing.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., get vs list vs search, change-request vs page vs space), so there is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform gitbook_ prefix (e.g., gitbook_list_spaces, gitbook_get_page, gitbook_create_change_request). The naming is predictable and systematic.
14 tools is slightly high but still reasonable for a documentation platform API covering resources like spaces, pages, change requests, collections, organizations, and search. Each tool has a clear purpose, though the set feels a bit broad with several read-only operations.
The set is heavily read-focused and lacks essential write operations for pages and spaces (create, update, delete), which are core to GitBook's purpose. It does cover change-request lifecycle partially (create, list, update) but omits merge/delete and page editing, leaving noticeable gaps.