Create a directory and any missing parent directories, but only inside configured safe paths. Ensures file structure can be built without leaving allowed areas.
Create a directory, including missing parent directories, inside configured allowed directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: missing parent directories are created and only configured allowed directories are targets. It does not mention failure behavior or what happens if the directory already exists, but no contradiction with annotations exists.
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 puts the verb first and tucks modifiers after it, with no filler. Every phrase ('including missing parent directories', 'inside configured allowed directories') earns its place.
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 one-parameter filesystem mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering read-only/destructive signals, the description is mostly complete: it reveals recursion and scope. Minor omissions such as existing-directory behavior and path resolution rules keep it from a perfect score.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single directory_path parameter, the description partially compensates by explaining that nested paths are accepted and that the path is constrained to configured allowed directories. It does not clarify path format, absolute/relative interpretation, or how allowed directories are determined, leaving some burden still on the parameter name.
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 clear action ('Create a directory') and a specific resource, and adds two defining constraints: recursive parent creation and restriction to configured allowed directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lb_write_text or lb_move_path, which operate on files rather than create directories.
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 implies when to use it (when a directory, including parents, needs to be created) and names the allowed-directory boundary, but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. Usage context is present but not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.