Creates a new Make.com data store for a team, letting you set an optional maximum size in MB.
Create a new data store
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Data store name | |
| teamId | Yes | Team ID | |
| maxSize | No | Max size in MB |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it: nothing about required permissions, whether the name must be unique, what happens if maxSize is omitted, or what the call returns. For a mutating create tool this is a serious gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded scope or constraint. Nothing is wasted because nothing meaningful is present.
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?
A creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that omits all behavioral and contextual detail is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly. There is no indication of scope, side effects, or result.
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 100% — name, teamId, and maxSize are each documented in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but it is not required to compensate for any coverage gap.
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 'Create a new data store' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name create_data_store, adding no distinguishing information. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_data_store_record, create_scenario, or clone_scenario. This is the tautology case described in the rubric.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_data_store_record (which presumably requires an existing store). The agent gets no help choosing this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.