bb_mkdirCreate a directory recursively by default, enabling setup of project folders or output paths for Blockbench models, exports, or textures. Requires file-system permission.
Create a directory (recursively by default). Needs file-system permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| recursive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 default recursion behavior and the permission requirement, but omits what happens if the directory already exists and how failures surface.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the recursion default immediately following. No filler; nothing to trim for a tool this simple.
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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials (action, recursion default, permission need) are present, but existing-directory behavior and error semantics are missing, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.
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 0% across 2 parameters. The description clarifies the 'recursive' parameter via 'recursively by default' and its default value, but 'path' is left entirely to the schema; partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a directory') and adds the recursive-by-default scope, which distinguishes it from path-listing siblings like bb_list_dir and from bb_delete_path. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
Provides one prerequisite ('Needs file-system permission') but gives no guidance on when to use this over siblings such as bb_write_file (which may implicitly create parents) or bb_request_fs for permissions. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.