Creates a directory and any missing parent folders under the knowledge base volume root, so you can organize stored documents and maintain a clear file structure.
Create a directory (and parents) under the volume root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relpath | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait beyond the schema: parent directories are created automatically (mkdir -p semantics). It says nothing about behavior when the directory already exists (error vs. idempotent), permissions required, or failure modes — significant gaps for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and the parents behavior are both packed into it.
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 return values need not be explained. However, for an unannotated mutation tool the description omits existence/overwrite behavior and error conditions, leaving an agent to guess how to handle a pre-existing path.
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?
There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying relpath is interpreted relative to the volume root, but it does not state the path format, allowed characters, or whether a leading slash is valid.
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 ("Create a directory") plus a scope constraint ("under the volume root"), which is enough to separate it from siblings like kb_move_file or kb_rename_file. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as kb_move_file or kb_list_tree, and no preconditions stated (permissions, whether the volume root must exist). Usage is only inferable from the name and the parenthetical "(and parents)".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.