Creates a new Change Request for the specified Config and Environment.
Creates a new Change Request for the specified Config and Environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| configId | Yes | The identifier of the Config. | |
| requestBody | Yes | ||
| environmentId | Yes | The identifier of the Environment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / requestBody / properties / sendNotificationsToApproversAdded value: +{
+ "description": "When true, email notifications are sent to team members with approval permission about this Change Request.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it 'creates' a request. It discloses nothing about the approval workflow, scheduling semantics (applyAt), the bypassApproval behavior, notification side effects, or required permissions — all of which live only in the schema.
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, which is good for a title-like statement. However, it is arguably too terse relative to the tool's complexity, so it captures conciseness but not maximal structural utility.
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 mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits the approval/scheduling lifecycle and the concurrency semantics implied by latestVersionId. An agent would need to mine the schema to understand how to construct a valid request.
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 coverage is 67% and the complex nested requestBody (proposedChanges, targetingRules, latestVersionId, bypassApproval) is not mentioned in the description at all. Only Config and Environment are alluded to, which merely restates two of the three required parameters.
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 (creates) and resource (Change Request) with scope (specified Config and Environment), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many change-request siblings (apply-, approve-, update-, close-change-request), relying on the verb alone to convey the distinction.
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 (e.g., that a created request must later be approved/applied), and no mention of alternatives like update-change-request or apply-change-request. The agent is left to infer the entire workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.