Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
masscode-mcp

masscode-mcp

by MDizzleZA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

masscode_create_tag

Create a new tag in massCode to categorize and organize your code snippets.

Instructions

Create a new tag.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "masscode_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTag name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the mutation ('Create a new tag') but does not disclose whether duplicate tags are allowed, whether authentication is required, or what the tool returns (e.g., the created tag object).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool, though slightly under-specified in content.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks expected context such as result behavior, uniqueness constraints, or relationship to snippets, leaving gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage: the only parameter 'name' is described as 'Tag name'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new tag'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools because 'tag' is explicitly named, though it does not contrast itself with create_snippet or create_folder.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as masscode_create_folder or masscode_create_snippet. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools