catalog_create_toolCreate a record in a writable catalog entity by providing the entity name and data payload. This adds new entries to Grocy household catalogs via MCP.
Create a record in a writable first-class catalog entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| entity | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool creates a record. It does not mention validation, persistence, permissions, error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the target catalog entity is not writable.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with the core action appearing immediately and no filler words. It loses a point because the unclear phrase 'writable first-class catalog entity' consumes valuable space without adding useful clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but the tool is still under-specified. With no annotations, opaque parameters, and no behavioral or usage guidance, an agent does not have enough information to invoke this tool correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the two required parameters. It does not clarify what entity values are valid, what format data should take, or how they relate to the 'record' being created, leaving the agent to guess.
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 concrete action ('Create a record') and identifies the resource as a catalog entity, which helps distinguish it from catalog_list_tool, catalog_details_tool, and catalog_update_tool. However, the phrase 'writable first-class catalog entity' is jargon and never explains what type of resource a catalog entity actually is.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as entity_create_tool or catalog_update_tool. The word 'writable' hints at a precondition, but no when/when-not conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.