create_categoryCreate a knowledge base category, optionally nested under a parent, with accessibility settings for public, internal, or private access.
Create a knowledge base category, optionally nested under a parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parentId | No | Parent category ID for a subcategory | |
| description | No | ||
| accessibility | No | public = everyone, internal = signed-in staff, private = specific users/groups |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention permission requirements, duplicate-name behavior, or the fact that repeated calls create multiple categories (non-idempotent).
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?
One short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being a structural flaw.
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 mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves out the accessibility option, permission/auth expectations, and any sense of what is returned on success. An agent could invoke it correctly for a simple case but would be blind to the visibility setting.
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 coverage is 50%, with parentId and accessibility documented in the schema but name and description not. The description only echoes the nesting behavior already stated in the parentId schema field and says nothing about the accessibility parameter, which has real visibility consequences (public = everyone).
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 and resource ('Create a knowledge base category') and notes the nesting option, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings like list_categories and get_category. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but no other sibling creates categories, so the agent can select it correctly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the phrase 'optionally nested under a parent'. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. having an existing parentId, locating one via list_categories) or on when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.