Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
safe-mind-tools

safe-mind-tools

by lewo-media
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

safe_mind_create_location

Create a company location and return its id and name for comparing results across multiple sites. Existing locations with the same name are reused, so no duplicates are created.

Instructions

Create one location (Standort) of the company and return its id and name. Use it for companies with several sites whose results should be compared; single-site companies do not need locations. Idempotent: if a location with exactly this name exists, that one is returned and nothing is duplicated. Not needed before safe_mind_create_survey, which creates missing locations by name itself. Locations cannot be renamed or deleted through the API. Requires an API key: set SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or call safe_mind_get_api_key first. Acts on the company of the account behind the key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the site as employees know it, e.g. "Hamburg" or "Werk Süd". Matched exactly (case-sensitive) against existing locations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Name of the site as employees know it, e.g. \"Hamburg\" or \"Werk Süd\". Matched exactly (case-sensitive) against existing locations."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: idempotency semantics (exact-name match returns existing, no duplication), immutability (cannot be renamed or deleted via API), auth requirement (SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or safe_mind_get_api_key), and account scoping. This is far beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return values, then layered with distinct functional facts (when to use, idempotency, constraint, auth). Every sentence contributes non-redundant information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return values, auth, idempotency, immutability, and usage conditions. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents the exact case-sensitive matching of the name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the idempotency/matching semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (create a location/Standort) and even names the return values (id and name). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the list/create siblings and defines its scope (company sites).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it (multi-site companies comparing results; single-site companies don't need it) and when it is unnecessary (not needed before safe_mind_create_survey, which auto-creates locations). This is textbook when/when-not guidance tied to named siblings.

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