create_unified_environmentCreate an environment in the connected account. Returns the created environment record. Requires the environment fields in the request body. Creates a new record; to search or list environments, use list_unified_environments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "Environment": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Environment"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the created record is returned (already implied by the output schema) and says nothing about auth scopes, side effects, or whether creation overwrites anything.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the sibling routing. 'Creates a new record' mildly restates 'Create an environment', but there is no filler beyond that.
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?
Annotations cover the mutation safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description asserts required request-body fields while the schema declares none, leaving the agent with no way to know what to send — a gap the description could have closed by naming the fields.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add that environment fields are required in the request body, which is useful signal given the schema exposes no properties — though it names none of those fields, so it is not fully compensating.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Create an environment in the connected account') plus an explicit statement that it creates a new record, which separates it from update_unified_environment and remove_unified_environment.
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?
Gives a clear use condition (creating a new environment in the connected account) and routes agents to `list_unified_environments` for search/listing. It stops short of naming update/remove as alternatives for existing environments, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.
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.