Skip to main content
Glama
SVerITG

Metis

by SVerITG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Metis — Create Document

create_document

Saves generated content as a persistent Markdown or Word file in outputs/, so documents stay findable instead of existing only in chat transcripts.

Instructions

Write a document to outputs/ — Markdown or Word (.docx).

The general "save this properly" tool. Without it, anything Metis produces in
a chat client exists only in the transcript, which is not somewhere work can
be found again.

Args:
    title: Document title; heads the file and derives its name.
    content: Body text. Markdown headings and bullets are honoured in both
        formats.
    subdir: Folder under outputs/ (default "reviews").
    fmt: "md" (default) or "docx".

Returns:
    The path written.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fmtNomd
titleYes
subdirNoreviews
contentYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioural burden. It does useful work by disclosing the write target (outputs/), the surprising default subfolder ("reviews"), format support and the return value (the written path). But for a filesystem mutation it omits overwrite/collision behaviour, permission or trust-folder requirements, and whether the directory tree is created automatically — all material for an agent writing files unattended.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and format in the first line, followed by a single motivating sentence and a compact args block; no filler. The "Returns: The path written" line is redundant with the output schema, a minor duplication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the one-line return note is sufficient and the four parameters are fully covered. The remaining gap is behavioural rather than parametric: overwrite semantics and directory-creation behaviour are unstated for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Parameters5/5

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, and it does: each of the four parameters is explained with non-obvious detail — title derives the filename, markdown headings and bullets are honoured in both formats, subdir is relative to outputs/ with default "reviews", and fmt defaults to "md" with "docx" as the alternative. An agent could not infer the filename-derivation rule or the docx markdown handling from the schema alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Write a document to outputs/") plus the two supported formats, and the phrase "the general 'save this properly' tool" positions it against more specialised writers in the sibling set such as create_presentation, create_poster and fill_document_template. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly establishes when to reach for this tool: any artefact produced in a chat client that should persist beyond the transcript. What's missing is the boundary condition — nothing says when to use create_presentation/create_poster/save_review instead, or whether existing files at the same path are replaced.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools