Create a new tag to organize notes in Baby Buddy. Specify a name and optional hex color for quick identification.
Create a new tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Tag name | |
| color | No | Tag color as a hex code (e.g. #ff5733) |
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new tag.' discloses only that a tag is being created and nothing else — no mention of uniqueness constraints on the name, color validation, error behavior on duplicates, or whether creation is reversible. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 short sentence that is efficient and without waste, but it is borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it delivers the minimum and no additional structuring or enrichment.
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?
The tool is simple (2 flat params, output schema present), so the description need not explain return values. However, given zero annotations, the lack of guidance on tag-name uniqueness or color constraints leaves the description at the bare-minimum threshold for completeness.
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%, so both parameters (name and color) are documented in the schema, including the hex format example for color. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?
The description 'Create a new tag.' states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('tag'). The sibling set includes notes_update_tag and notes_delete_tag, so the create/update/delete action implicitly differentiates it, though the description doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus notes_update_tag or notes_delete_tag. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues — an agent must infer from the verb 'create' alone. This is a clear gap for a mutation operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.