Create a floor plan in OpenWISP with a name and optional organization to organize network infrastructure by physical location.
[Category: Geo & Locations] Create a floor plan. (HTTP POST /api/v1/controller/floorplan/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Floor plan name | |
| organization | No | Organization ID or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Create' and gives an HTTP POST, implying a write, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or whether the floor plan is scoped to an organization. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?
One short sentence plus a bracketed category and HTTP path. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the endpoint path is arguably redundant given the tool name.
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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on prerequisites or fields, the description is minimal. An agent cannot determine required org context or what a successful creation returns, so completeness is inadequate.
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%, so both parameters (name and organization) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Create a floor plan'), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like openwisp_update_floorplan or openwisp_get_floorplan. However, it offers no differentiation beyond the name itself, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., an organization must exist) or when to choose this over other creation tools. The HTTP endpoint is included but that is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.