Create a group markdown knowledge space and assign the creator as admin. Use this to organize shared documentation with optional member lists and descriptions.
Create a group markdown knowledge space. The creator becomes admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| members_json | No | [] |
| 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?
Annotations provide no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the creator becomes admin, which is useful, but omits other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise with no fluff, but it is so short that it under-specifies the tool. It front-loads the main purpose but omits essential details, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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 create tool with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a title annotation, this description is wholly inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, output expectations, and error cases. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the missing input guidance.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (slug, title, description, members_json). It mentions 'group markdown' but gives no hints about what slug or members_json should contain. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 action ('Create a group markdown knowledge space') and clearly identifies the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list/get or member management. It could be more explicit about how it differs from other create-type operations, but the verb and resource are clear.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. update, or prerequisites like permissions). It does not mention any exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between this and related knowledge space tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.