data_createCreate a new record in a specified entity by supplying field values as JSON. Use it to insert structured data into your Anythink backend.
Create a new record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | JSON object with field values, e.g. '{"name":"Alice","age":30}' | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safe profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no conflict/duplicate behavior, no validation expectations, no note that partial or malformed JSON data will fail.
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?
Four words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence conveys no information an agent could not get from the tool name and annotations.
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 write tool taking an entity name plus a free-form JSON payload, the description should say something about entity semantics, required field values, or the shape of a successful result. None of that is present, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.
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 100%, with both `entity` and `data` documented (including a JSON example), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes zero additional meaning, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is complete.
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?
"Create a new record" essentially restates the tool name (data_create) with no differentiating detail. Among siblings like entities_create, accounts_create, projects_create, and data_update, an agent cannot tell what "record" means here or which collection this writes to.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative creation tools such as entities_create or accounts_create. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.