Create a knowledge-base page by specifying a unique path, title, and Markdown body to store structured information for AI agents, enabling organized reference and retrieval when investigating issues or analyzing behavior.
Create a knowledge-base page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Markdown body of the page | |
| kind | No | ||
| path | Yes | Unique slug/path for the page within the agent KB | |
| title | Yes | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), but the description doesn't clarify what happens on creation (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, auth requirements). With no additional behavioral context, the description provides minimal value beyond the annotation's implicit mutation.
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?
One short, direct sentence with no fluff. All words are purposeful. Appropriate for a straightforward creation tool.
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?
Tool is simple (no output schema, no nested objects, 5 flat params). The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic create operation. However, missing details like idempotency or required fields (kind vs optional) are not covered, so an agent might not know how to use the optional parameters.
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 40%: 'body' and 'path' have descriptions, but 'title', 'kind', and 'summary' have none. The description 'knowledge-base page' does not explain these parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is fair, but the low coverage means the schema already partially fails.
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 verb 'Create' and resource 'knowledge-base page'. Distinguishes from siblings (invariance_kb_page_update, invariance_kb_page_get, invariance_kb_page_delete) by the create-focused action. However, lacks specifics like content type or unique aspects of creation.
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?
Implied usage: to create a new page in the KB, as opposed to updating or getting existing pages. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Siblings like invariance_kb_page_update are clear alternatives, but the description doesn't state when to choose one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.