Create a knowledge base article by providing title, HTML content, visibility, and category. Publish help center documentation to make answers accessible to customers and agents.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Cria artigo na base de conhecimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | Conteudo HTML do artigo. | |
| visibility | Yes | Quem pode ver o artigo. | |
| category_id | Yes | ||
| display_order | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The warning 'ATENCAO: altera producao' adds useful context that this operation changes production data, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible beyond what the word 'create' already implies.
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 very short and front-loads the important production-change warning before the action statement. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful detail.
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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return behavior, required permissions, category semantics, and any practical usage context beyond the minimal action.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema describes only content and visibility; title and category_id remain minimally documented. With schema coverage around 50%, the description needed to compensate, but it does not.
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 clearly states the action: 'Cria artigo na base de conhecimento' (creates article in the knowledge base), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from read/search/update siblings by the 'create' semantics, though it does not explicitly contrast with those tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus tomticket_read_article, tomticket_search_articles, or tomticket_update_article. The warning 'altera producao' implies caution, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.