DragApp MCP Server

create_article

Add a new article to your team's knowledge base. Categorize and publish for team or public access using a team ID.

Instructions

Create a new knowledge base article. Articles can be categorised and published for team or public access. Use list_teams to find your team ID first.

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Article body in HTML
`title`	Yes	Article title
`teamId`	Yes	The team ID
`categoryId`	No	Category to file the article under

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Indicates mutation ('Create') and mentions categorization and publishing, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return value. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence captures the primary purpose immediately, the second adds relevant usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so description should explain return value, but it is missing. Parameter coverage is good, but missing key behavior like what is returned after creation. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (only implied category usage). Baseline 3 as documentation is already sufficient.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new knowledge base article' with verb and resource. Mentions categorization and publishing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_article and get_article.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_teams to find your team ID first'. Offers clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.