Create a certification entry in your portfolio with title, authority, issue/expiration dates, credential URL, and related skills or projects. Requires write permission.
Create a new certification. Requires write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Certification title | |
| authority | No | ||
| body_html | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| skill_ids | No | ||
| issued_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| project_ids | No | ||
| credential_url | No | ||
| expiration_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that write permission is required, which is a useful constraint, but it does not disclose expected return values, side effects, error conditions, or any other behavioral details. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 concise, with two short sentences and no redundant wording. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, and while it is not verbose, the lack of substantive content reduces its effectiveness. It earns points for being front-loaded with the action and permission, but the structure is minimal.
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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the creation process, success/failure responses, validation rules, or any relationship to other entities. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional external knowledge.
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 only 33%, and the tool description adds no parameter details whatsoever. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most of the 9 parameters unexplained. The agent has to infer semantics from property names alone, which is inadequate for parameters like 'authority', 'body_html', and 'skill_ids'.
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 the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'certification', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_certification, update_certification, and delete_certification. It is unambiguous about the action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states the action and a permission requirement, offering no routing or exclusion information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.