Creates a property group to define reusable input or constant properties, including type, validation, defaults, and project association.
Creates a property group POST /properties/api/property-groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the write operation — no mention of required authorization, uniqueness constraints on name, or what happens on conflict. It does not contradict the 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?
Very short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing 'POST /properties/api/property-groups' duplicates the annotation title and adds little, but overall there is no bloat.
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?
This is a creation tool with a deeply nested body (properties map with recursive type definitions) and no output schema. The description never explains what the request body must contain, what INPUT vs CONSTANT types mean, or what the response returns (e.g., the created group ID), leaving significant gaps for a complex mutation.
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 description coverage is 100%, including nested property definitions, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description contributes no additional detail on the body structure or the meaning of the apiVersion parameter, which is the correct baseline-3 case.
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 ('Creates a property group'), which distinguishes it from blueprint_update_property_group, blueprint_delete_property_group and blueprint_list_property_groups by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings in the text, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a property group versus updating an existing one, no prerequisites (project selection, permissions), and no mention of the alternative sibling tools. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name and annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.