Creates a directory with any missing parent folders, or reports if it already exists.
Create a directory and missing parents, or report that it already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| resources | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and non-read-only, and the description reinforces this by disclosing that missing parents are created and an existing directory is reported rather than erroring. It stops short of covering path format, permissions, or error behavior, but the added behavioral context is real.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the idempotency clause second. No filler, 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 one-parameter tool, the description plus annotations and an existing output schema cover enough to invoke it correctly. The only omission is path-format guidance, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implies the single 'path' argument points at a directory to create. It does not clarify whether the path is workspace-relative or absolute, leaving a genuine gap for the one required parameter.
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 (create) and resource (directory), and adds the distinguishing mkdir -p behavior of creating missing parents. No sibling performs directory creation, so the tool is unambiguous among the file/workspace tools listed.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parent-creation and 'already exists' clauses hint at when this is preferred over manual sequencing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or precondition statement. No alternative sibling exists to route against, which keeps it merely adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.