create_caseCreate a new forensic investigation case by providing a case name and optional description to organize and track DFIR evidence and analysis.
Create a new forensic investigation case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the case (e.g. "Incident host-01 ransomware"). | |
| description | No | Optional longer description of the case. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the act of creation: no persistence guarantees, no required auth/permission level, no indication of whether the case is immediately visible to get_case/list_cases, and no side effects. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful 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?
A single short sentence with the verb-resource pair front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers the two simple parameters. However, as an unannotated mutation tool it omits permissions, side effects, and any post-creation workflow hints, leaving the definition minimally but not fully adequate.
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%, and the schema already documents both 'name' and 'description' including an example and a default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Create a ... case') and the domain ('forensic investigation'), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings (list_cases, get_case, verify_evidence). It does not explicitly name or contrast the nearest alternative, 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 case versus reusing an existing one, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication or permissions), and no mention of sibling tools such as register_evidence that would follow. The agent must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.