Preview or create a Custom Field on a Frappe DocType via the standard REST API, using app, module, field details, and explicit confirmation.
Preview or create a Custom Field through the standard Frappe REST API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | ||
| field | Yes | ||
| module | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| doctype | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool. It does not say what preview mode returns versus what creation does, what permissions are required, whether the field is immediately active on existing documents, or how to roll it back — 'standard Frappe REST API' is the only behavioral hint.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it satisfies the structural bar. It is, however, under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of the information the tool needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and that is the only thing the description gets for free. For a 5-parameter write tool with a nested object and zero annotations, the description leaves critical gaps around preview semantics, required permissions, and field-object structure.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including a nested free-form 'field' object, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what 'app' and 'module' scope means, what keys the 'field' object expects, or what 'confirm' toggles — all of which an agent must guess.
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 pairs a specific verb (create) with a specific resource (Custom Field), and mentions a preview mode, so the basic action is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes this tool from plausible alternatives in the sibling list such as create_doctype or set_field_property, and the 'Preview or create' phrasing leaves the actual mode of operation ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus set_field_property, create_doctype, or export_customizations, which all touch schema customization. Nothing explains the role of the 'confirm' parameter in choosing between preview and creation, so the agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.