Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
engineering-knowledge-mcp

engineering-knowledge-mcp

by niallr12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create knowledge document

create_knowledge

Create a new Markdown knowledge document under a specified topic path. Use when capturing fresh engineering knowledge; fails if the document already exists, prompting an update instead.

Instructions

Create a new Markdown knowledge document under knowledge/.md. Fails if a document already exists at that path (use update_knowledge instead). Topic paths are sanitized and cannot escape the knowledge directory.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesDocument title, used in frontmatter and as the H1 if content has none
topicYesTopic path, e.g. 'api/graphql' or 'cloud/gcp'
contentYesMarkdown body content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the fail-if-exists behavior, path sanitization, and containment within the knowledge directory. It does not mention the success return value or authorization requirements, but those are secondary for a create operation with this level of detail.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, the failure condition follows immediately, and the alternative tool is named without extra prose. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is complete for a simple create tool: it covers purpose, path behavior, failure mode, and the key alternative. The only minor gap is not describing what a successful response looks like, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context for topic by explaining the knowledge/<topic>.md mapping and sanitization, but it does not significantly expand on title or content beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description names the specific action (create), the resource (Markdown knowledge document), and the exact storage location (knowledge/<topic>.md). It also explicitly contrasts itself with update_knowledge by stating the failure condition when the document already exists.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly says to use update_knowledge instead when a document already exists, which gives an explicit create-vs-update routing rule. It does not explicitly contrast itself with capture_knowledge, but the failure-on-existing condition makes the intended use case clear.

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