Create a Docmost wiki space with a name, optional slug, and description to organize pages. Requires permission to manage spaces.
Create a space. Slug is generated from the name if omitted. Requires permission to manage spaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: slug auto-generation from the name when omitted and the permission requirement. It does not describe edge cases like duplicate slugs, but for a create tool the key behaviors are disclosed.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by two high-value behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.
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 three-parameter create operation with annotations covering safety, the description covers the main context: what it creates, how slug behaves, and the permission barrier. It does not specify return values or duplicate behavior, but these are not essential given the lack of an output schema and the self-explanatory nature of the operation.
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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It adds meaningful semantics for slug by explaining it is generated from the name if omitted, but it does not explain the 'description' parameter or further clarify constraints on name. The parameter names are self-evident enough to keep this at an adequate rather than poor level.
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 states 'Create a space' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_space and delete_space, and the slug-generation detail reinforces the creation-specific behavior.
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 provides a useful prerequisite by noting that managing spaces requires permission, which helps the agent decide whether it can safely call the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.