Create a PHP file by path: under units/ it makes a module with JSON and view folders; any other path makes a root script beside index.php.
Create a php file by the same path load and save speak. units/.php makes a module - its .json and a view folder in every template set come with it; any other path makes a root script beside index.php.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant side effect: for units/<name>.php it also creates a .json and a view folder in every template set. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or other potential side effects, and the first sentence is ambiguous.
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 short and front-loaded with 'Create', but the first sentence is awkward and confusing ('by the same path load and save speak'), which detracts from clarity. The second sentence is clear and structured, but the overall phrasing could be improved.
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 one-parameter creation tool, it explains the two cases and side effects, which covers the core usage. However, it lacks explicit mention of what happens if the file already exists, error conditions, or return values, and the unclear first sentence leaves some gaps.
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 must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter thoroughly by describing the two path patterns (units/<name>.php and other) and their consequences, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 it creates a php file and distinguishes two path-based behaviors (module vs. root script), which differentiates it from siblings like engine_php_save or engine_php_remove. However, the phrase 'by the same path load and save speak' is unclear and slightly obscures the core message.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'create' and the path semantics are explained, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., engine_php_save for existing files). The description does not state exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.