Create a new directory at a given path, automatically including any missing parent directories. Use it to set up folder structures in one step without manual nesting.
Create a new directory, including any missing parent directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses recursive parent-directory creation, but it omits important mutation behavior such as what happens if the directory already exists, permission requirements, or failure conditions.
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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It contains no redundant or wasted wording.
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?
For a simple one-parameter directory-creation tool, the description covers the core action and recursive parent behavior. However, it leaves out path semantics and existing-directory behavior, which matter because there are no annotations to fill those gaps and no output schema to clarify return behavior.
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%, and the description does not mention the single 'path' parameter or explain its expected format, relative/absolute behavior, or constraints. The schema only names the parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the missing semantic detail.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new directory.' It also adds scope by saying it creates missing parent directories, which clearly separates it from create_file, delete_directory, and other siblings.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_file, write_file, or run_command. It also gives no conditions for when not to use it or what prerequisites are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.