Create a new Architecture Decision Record markdown stub by providing a decision title and optional context, generating a structured ADR file for documenting architectural choices.
Generate a new ADR markdown stub.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Decision title | |
| context | No | Context |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the bare action of generating a stub. It does not disclose side effects such as file creation, naming conventions, or filesystem writes, nor what 'stub' contains — a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the total absence of supplementary behavioral detail.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is thin: with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on what the stub contains or what the tool returns, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it with full confidence. Required/optional parameter info is present in the schema, but the operational outcome of generation is left unexplained.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's 'Decision title' and 'Context', leaving the role of context in the generated stub undocumented.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('a new ADR markdown stub'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from siblings adr_status and adr_list by the generate-verb and new-stub object, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus adr_status or adr_list, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line purpose, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.