redraft

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_node

Create a typed design node in the project graph without attaching it, then call create_edge to link it into the structure.

Instructions

Create a new node. Does not attach it anywhere -- call create_edge next.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`status`	No
`properties`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`status`	No
`created`	Yes
`updated`	Yes
`properties`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious trait that the node is created detached and needs a follow-up create_edge, but says nothing about permissions, duplicate/collision handling, or what identifier comes back to use as the edge source.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the critical sequencing caveat front-loaded right after the purpose. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the description covers the main gotcha (detached node requires create_edge). It remains thin on parameter meaning for a five-parameter create tool, but nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names none of the five parameters, so the meaning of title, body, status, and properties is left entirely to inference. The enum does self-document the ten node types, but the description adds no semantic value over the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new node') and immediately distinguishes itself from the edge-creating siblings by declaring what it does not do. An agent can tell it apart from create_edge/create_edges/merge_nodes without inspecting any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step ('call create_edge next'), which is the primary sequencing decision for this tool. It gives clear context for use but no when-not guidance or coverage of alternatives like merge_nodes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.