Sitecore Community MCP

item-service-create-item

Creates a Sitecore item under a given parent path with a specified name and template ID. Use to add content or data items programmatically.

Instructions

Create a new Sitecore item under parent path with name using template id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "parentPath": "<parentPath>",
      "itemName": "<itemName>",
      "templateId": "<templateId>"
    },
    "name": "item-service-create-item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`options`	No
`itemName`	Yes
`parentPath`	Yes
`templateId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.3Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission/auth requirements, what happens if the item already exists, or how the optional data/options payloads are applied.

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?

A single sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('under parent path with name using template id') but wastes no words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with five parameters, nested objects, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine how to populate the data/options objects or what the call returns, so key calling details are missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden, yet it only alludes to the three required parameters (parentPath, itemName, templateId) without format details (path syntax, GUID vs. path for templateId). The nested 'data' and 'options' objects — including database and language selection — are entirely unmentioned.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource — 'Create a new Sitecore item' — and names the key inputs (parent path, name, template id). It does not differentiate itself from the near-duplicate sibling authoring-create-item, which an agent would need to choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like authoring-create-item and item-service-edit-item present, the agent gets no signal on which creation path to pick or what prerequisites apply.

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

Deploy Server