Create a component within a specified project to organize shared memory; provide a project name or ID for every write.
Create a component within a project. Write: requires project="" (or project_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| model | No | Your model name, if you know it (optional; never guessed) | |
| project | No | Project name or id. Required for every write. | |
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| parent_component_id | No | For nesting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the write-prerequisite constraint, which is genuinely beyond the annotations. It says nothing about failure modes, duplicate handling, or what the call returns.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core action plus the blocking prerequisite are front-loaded. Every clause 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 6-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers only the required-project constraint. It omits the nesting capability (parent_component_id) and gives no hint about what is returned, which matters for a create operation. Annotations cover safety, so it is serviceable but thin.
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 50%, so several params lean on the schema. The description clarifies the project/project_id either-or, which the schema does not express as an explicit alternative — a real addition. But it says nothing about the optional params (description, parent_component_id nesting, model), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'Create a component within a project.' The action is unambiguous and separable from create_project, update_component. However, it never names a sibling or scopes itself against them, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Provides a concrete prerequisite ('requires project="<name>" (or project_id)') rather than pure inference. But there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer update_component or list_components, and no condition under which creation should be avoided (e.g. duplicates).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.