Creates a UML Activity under a specified parent to add new activity diagrams to your SysML model by providing a name and parent ID.
Create a UML Activity owned by parent_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether the parent must exist. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious create operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema likely describes the return value, but the description still misses key usage context: parent type constraints, required name conventions, and how it differs from many similar create tools. It is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 explain parameters. It mentions parent_id as the owner but does not describe what kind of parent is expected or what the name parameter is for. The name parameter is entirely undocumented.
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 (create) and the resource (UML Activity), and specifies ownership via parent_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_action or create_state_machine.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. other create_* siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.