Create a markdown document with title, content, and optional tags so AI assistants can store and organize documents in mcpserve-py.
Create a new markdown document with optional tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Optional tags for categorization | |
| title | Yes | Document title | |
| content | Yes | Markdown content |
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 behavioral burden. 'Create a new markdown document' implies a mutation, but the description does not state whether tags are applied at creation or must exist beforehand, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the return value contains.
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 no filler. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.
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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what the created document's identifier or response looks like, nor whether tags affect discoverability elsewhere. More context would help the agent call it correctly.
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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional tags' which matches the schema's 'Optional tags for categorization', but adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (create) and resource (markdown document) plus the optional tags aspect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_document or list_documents, but the creation semantics are clear from the verb alone.
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?
Implied usage is clear from the verb 'Create' – the agent knows this is for new document creation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints (e.g., whether documents must be in a workspace, whether title must be unique).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.