Creates a child item in a TwinCAT XAE automation tree by parent path, name, and subtype; for PLC POUs, use the dedicated POU creation tool instead.
Generic CreateChild (tree item types/subtypes per Infosys). For PLC objects prefer xae_pou_create.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| before | No | ||
| subtype | Yes | ||
| parent_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that subtypes come from an Infosys catalog; it says nothing about side effects, whether the parent must exist, or the notable idempotency claim for a create operation.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose and the sibling routing front-loaded. Terse to the point of under-specification, but there is no wasted text.
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 described, but a 5-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage and only two lines of description leaves too much undocumented. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics or creation preconditions.
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 0% for all 5 parameters (info, name, before, subtype, parent_path), so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. The only hint is that subtype values follow 'Infosys' definitions, leaving parent_path, name, before, and the untyped 'info' object entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (create a child tree item) and explicitly routes PLC-object cases to xae_pou_create, which distinguishes it from at least one sibling. The parenthetical 'tree item types/subtypes per Infosys' is cryptic and leans on external catalog knowledge, keeping it short of a 5.
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 one-line exclusion ('For PLC objects prefer xae_pou_create') gives real routing guidance, but there is no general statement of when to use this generic creator versus xae_tree_consume_xml, xae_plcopen_import, or other tree-construction tools. Implied usage rather than complete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.