NexTool MCP for GLPI

Create entity

glpi_create_entity

Create a new entity in GLPI with name, optional parent (0=Root), and metadata. Use to add organizational units or sub-entities.

Instructions

Create a new entity. Fields: name (required), entities_id (parent, 0=Root), comment, address, etc.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_create_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Entity fields

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`replayed`	No	True when an identical recent create was returned instead of repeated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds field-level context (required name, parent semantics with 0=Root) but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though the vague 'etc.' is slightly unhelpful.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, reducing the description's burden. However, for a create tool with an open object schema, the incomplete field enumeration ('etc.') leaves agents uncertain about the full valid input set.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema is an open object with no field-level documentation, so the description carries nearly the full burden. It usefully identifies 'name' as required and explains entities_id as the parent entity with 0=Root, though the trailing 'etc.' leaves the field list incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new entity'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like glpi_update_entity or glpi_list_entities, but the action verb distinguishes it enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glpi_update_entity or glpi_list_entities. The description only states the action, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server