Create a local architectural entity from its DSL template without committing or publishing, enabling immediate review and iteration.
Create a local entity from its DSL template without commit or publication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | ||
| entity_path | Yes | ||
| repository_path | Yes | ||
| declaration_path | No | architecture.yaml |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side-effect boundary: creation is local and does not commit or publish. It does not mention overwrite behavior, idempotency, required repository state, or failure responses.
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 no filler. It names the action, the resource, and the key scope limitation efficiently.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, this description is too sparse. An agent cannot tell what state the repository must be in, whether an existing entity is overwritten, or which parameter points to the template versus the output location. The output schema exists but does not compensate for these gaps.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters or their relationships. 'DSL template' vaguely hints at declaration_path, but it never clarifies the distinction between entity_path, declaration_path, and repository_path.
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 action ('create'), a specific resource ('entity'), and the source ('DSL template'), while also bounding the scope with 'local' and 'without commit or publication'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like entity_update or repository_publish.
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?
The phrase 'without commit or publication' gives useful context that this is a local-only draft operation. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or when the user would need to follow up with repository_commit or repository_publish.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.