machship-mcp

Create Custom Schema

machship_create_custom_schema

Creates a custom schema to extend Machship entities with additional fields, letting you define a schema name, target entity type, and JSON schema.

Instructions

Creates a new custom schema to extend Machship entities with additional fields.

Args:

name (string): Schema name
type (string): Schema type/entity to extend
schema (object): JSON schema definition

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Schema name
`type`	Yes	Schema type/entity
`schema`	Yes	JSON schema definition

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / schema / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: it does not say whether duplicate names are rejected, that repeated calls create duplicates (non-idempotent), whether permissions are required, or what happens on validation failure. For a mutation tool, this leaves an important gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is front-loaded and earns its place. The Args block is redundant with the input schema and could be dropped, but it is short and does not obscure the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the agent still lacks the valid entity types for "type" and confirmation of non-idempotent create semantics, which matter for a schema-mutating tool in an open-world API.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already fully documented in the input schema, and the Args block merely restates those descriptions verbatim. It adds no meaning such as which values of "type" are valid or any structural constraints on the "schema" object beyond its being a JSON schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Creates a new custom schema to extend Machship entities with additional fields." This distinguishes it from sibling machship_get_custom_schema, machship_update_custom_schema and machship_delete_custom_schema by the verb alone. It is clear enough without opening the schema, though it does not call out the alternatives by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the "create" verb and the existence of get/update/delete siblings. Nothing tells the agent when to create a new schema versus updating an existing one, or what preconditions (e.g. an entity that supports extension) must hold.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server