Create a new library in NASA SciX to organize astronomical papers, optionally adding initial bibcodes and a description for reference management.
Create a new library with optional initial documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Library name | |
| public | No | Whether library is public | |
| bibcodes | No | Initial bibcodes to add | |
| description | No | Library description | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / bibcodes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Initial bibcodes to add (optional)"New value: +"Initial bibcodes to add"Input schema / properties / description / descriptionPrevious value: -"Library description (optional)"New value: +"Library description"Input schema / properties / description / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Library name (1-255 characters)"New value: +"Library name"Input schema / properties / name / maxLengthAdded value: +255Input schema / properties / name / minLengthAdded value: +1v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the fact that documents may be attached at creation time; it says nothing about permission requirements, name uniqueness behavior, or whether duplicate calls create duplicate libraries.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate tightness.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description omits what is returned (e.g., the new library's identifier) and any error or permission conditions. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the result or failure modes.
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 80%, so the schema already documents name, public, bibcodes, and description. The description echoes 'name' and the initial-documents concept without adding format, limits, or interaction details, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new library') and adds scope ('with optional initial documents'), which is clear enough to separate it from get_library, delete_library, and edit_library. It stops short of naming any sibling or the boundary between create_library and add_documents_by_query for seeding documents.
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 prerequisites (authentication, ownership), and no mention of alternatives such as edit_library for modifying an existing library. The agent must infer that this is the creation path purely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.