Creates a directory and its missing parent directories on Ubuntu, either on the local machine or on a configured remote host. Specify the desired path to prepare the folder structure for later use.
Konyvtar (es szuloi) letrehozasa.
Args: params (MakeDirInput): path, host. Returns: str: Megerosites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable behavior that parent directories are created ('es szuloi') and notes the return is a confirmation string. No contradiction with annotations.
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 definition is compact and front-loaded: one line for purpose, one for parameters, one for returns. There is no filler or redundant exposition.
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 one-required-parameter tool, the description plus annotations and schema cover the core action, parent-directory behavior, and confirmation result. The missing usage-vs-alternatives context is a gap, but it is separately captured under usage guidelines.
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?
The Args line simply names 'path, host' and omits response_format entirely; it provides no meaning beyond the parameter names. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description should have compensated but does not.
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 opens with the specific verb and resource: 'Konyvtar (es szuloi) letrehozasa' (create directory and parents). This states exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling file operations like list_files, write_file, and delete_path.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The description only restates the action, so an agent must infer when to choose make_dir over file/host tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.