create_companyCreates a new company in the ALSO Cloud Marketplace from a companyAccount payload, enabling organization setup and later verification via the Simple API.
WRITE: CreateCompany. Pass companyAccount object (parent, name, address, … per Simple API). Prefer get_companies afterwards to verify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyAccount | Yes | CompanyAccount payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the 'WRITE:' prefix merely restates that, which adds no information. The description does add workflow context (verify with get_companies) but omits permission requirements and what the response contains (e.g., new company ID).
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?
Two short sentences with the operation and payload front-loaded and the verification hint second. Only the redundant 'WRITE:' prefix is arguably wasted.
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 create tool taking an opaque nested payload with no output schema, the description should say what identifies the created record and which fields are mandatory. Pointing at 'Simple API' and suggesting get_companies verification helps, but significant gaps remain.
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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the schema only defines companyAccount as an untyped object with additionalProperties {} and the label 'CompanyAccount payload'. The description partially compensates by naming a few fields (parent, name, address) and pointing to 'Simple API', but the ellipsis leaves required field details undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource (create a company) and the payload object to pass ('companyAccount'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_companies/get_company siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_company or create_reseller.
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?
It gives a follow-up workflow hint ('Prefer get_companies afterwards to verify') but no guidance on when to use this versus update_company, nor on prerequisites such as requiring a valid parent account. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.