Create a new Cabinet, a durable download queue, to organize and store files for Figranium automation tasks. Provide a descriptive name to get started.
Create a new Cabinet (durable download queue) on the Figranium server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Descriptive name for the new Cabinet. Expected type: string. Example: 'Invoices' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'durable download queue' framing but does not disclose additional behavioral details like duplicate handling, authentication, or response behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'durable download queue' adds useful context without bloating the text.
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 create operation, the description and annotations are mostly sufficient: the agent knows the action, resource type, and mutation profile. The only notable gap is that no return value or follow-up behavior is described, and there is no output schema, but this is a minor omission for such a simple tool.
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?
The only parameter, 'name', is fully described in the schema with type and example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'Cabinet', further clarifying it as a 'durable download queue' on the Figranium server. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or list_cabinets.
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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer selection context solely from the tool name and the generic action statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.