Create a new file geodatabase in ArcGIS Pro by specifying a name and optional parent folder. Use it to store spatial datasets in a .gdb for your project.
Create a new file geodatabase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Geodatabase name (.gdb is added if missing). | |
| folder | No | Parent folder; default the project home folder. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not say what permissions or workspace state are required, what happens if the geodatabase already exists, or how it relates to the project home default that the schema mentions. For a mutating creation tool this is a notable 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 well-formed sentence with no wasted words, but it is also nearly a restatement of the tool name, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally viable for a creation tool.
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%, so both 'name' (with .gdb suffix behavior) and 'folder' (default project home) are already fully documented. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Create) and resource (file geodatabase), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_feature_class or create_table that operate on different dataset types. It is clear but adds no scoping detail beyond the name-and-resource pairing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_feature_class or add_folder_connection, and no prerequisites (e.g., workspace/folder must exist) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.