Create a new business unit in BoondManager by providing its name, optional parent unit, and manager to organize your company hierarchy.
Create a new business unit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parentId | No | ||
| managerId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Create' without detailing side effects, permissions, return values, or the implications of setting parentId or managerId. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff, but it is extremely minimal—arguably under-specified. However, it is appropriately sized for stating the action, so it earns a 4.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not address any of them or the expected response. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly, including what inputs are required or optional.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (name, parentId, managerId). It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what these fields represent or how they are used.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'business unit', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_businessunits_get, _update, and _search. It is unambiguous about the action and target.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The user must infer that creation is intended for new entities, but there is no explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.