Create a client or internal document from HTML content, with optional nesting under a parent document. Upload images first, as data URLs are not supported.
Creates a document with an HTML body, either for a client or for internal use, optionally nested under another document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | A new document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is already conveyed. The description adds the HTML-body nature of the write and the nesting relationship, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what a created document returns. Some added context, not rich.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and key scope constraints front-loaded. No wasted text, though it is quite terse for a create tool.
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?
With a fully documented nested parameter and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Only minor gaps remain (permissions, return shape), and no output schema exists to cover the latter.
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 100%: the nested object documents Body (HTML, no data: URLs), Title (max 200), ClientId, and ParentDocumentId in detail. The description only echoes these at a high level and adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a document') and adds meaningful scope: HTML body, client vs internal, optional nesting. An agent can distinguish it from gorelo_update_document and gorelo_duplicate_document, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Implies the create context (new document, client or internal, nested or top-level) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites. The 'either for a client or for internal use' clause clarifies intent somewhat, but routing between create/update/duplicate is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.