Create an empty documentation source in the primary repository by specifying a name and type. This action initializes a new node for documentation before any content is added.
Create an empty documentation source in the primary configured repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| origin | No | ||
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It only states 'create an empty documentation source,' which conveys the basic action but omits side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single, clear sentence with no filler, and the core verb and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail elsewhere.
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?
Given the 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It only states the basic creation action and doesn't cover return values, prerequisites, or any constraints beyond the primary repository, making it insufficient for confident use.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (name, type, origin, version). It fails to explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the creation process, providing no compensatory value.
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 a specific verb ('create') and resource ('documentation source') with a location ('in the primary configured repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_sources or fetch_docs. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_nodes or remove_source. It only describes the action itself, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.