Creates a Gemini File Search store that acts as a knowledge base for RAG, returning the new store resource so you can upload documents and query them.
Create a new Gemini File Search store for RAG documents. Returns the created store resource. Use this to create a knowledge base before uploading documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| display_name | Yes | Display name for the store (max 512 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the created store resource and acts as the prerequisite for uploads, but says nothing about naming constraints, quotas, or failure behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this modest addition merits a 3.
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?
Three short sentences that front-load what is created, then what is returned, then when to use it. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.
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 single-parameter create tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it makes, what it returns, and when to reach for it. The only gap is not naming the downstream upload sibling explicitly.
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 100% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents display_name and its 512-character limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Gemini File Search store for RAG documents') and clarifies the returned artifact. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gemini_delete_store or gemini_list_stores, but the create verb makes the intent unmistakable.
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?
'Use this to create a knowledge base before uploading documents' gives a clear sequence and prerequisite, pointing at the upload flow. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g., gemini_upload_to_store) explicitly, so an agent must infer the next step from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.