create_ciCreate a new CMDB configuration item by specifying its class and attribute key-value pairs.
Create a new CMDB configuration item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | CI attributes as key-value pairs (must include 'name') | |
| class_name | No | CMDB class name | cmdb_ci |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) by indicating a write operation, but adds no additional behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency beyond what the annotations already convey.
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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple create operation with a well-specified schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention the required 'name' field but that is already in the schema, so completeness is strong. The lack of an output schema means no return value explanation is needed.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters (data with 'must include name', class_name with default), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, keeping the baseline at 3.
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 'CMDB configuration item', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ci, get_ci, and update_ci. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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 implies usage (when you need to create a new CI) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_record or update_ci. The intent is clear from the wording but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.