Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_object

Create a new catalog item or document in 1C:Enterprise ERP by specifying object type and attributes, with optional tabular sections.

Instructions

Создать новый элемент справочника или документ. Для ссылочных реквизитов передавай UUID со суффиксом _guid.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>",
      "attributes": "<attributes>"
    },
    "name": "create_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
full_nameYesТип объекта, например: Справочник.Номенклатура
attributesYesJSON-объект с реквизитами нового объекта
tabular_sectionsNoJSON-объект с табличными частями (необязательно)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions creation and a parameter format rule, but omits side effects, error conditions, permissions, or return value. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives a critical constraint. No redundant words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool creates arbitrary objects and has no output schema, the description should explain return values, validation, or behavior on duplicates. It lacks completeness for a complex creation operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds valuable context by specifying that reference attributes require UUIDs with '_guid' suffix, which is beyond the schema's basic description. This helps with correct parameter construction.

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 clearly states it creates a new catalog item or document, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_object or delete_object. However, it could be more precise about which object types are supported.

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?

The description provides a parameter-specific hint for reference attributes but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_object or post_document. No explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools