create_document_typeDefine a new document type with a name and optional matching criteria to automatically sort incoming documents into that type.
Create a new document type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| match | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| document_count | No | ||
| is_insensitive | No | ||
| user_can_change | No | ||
| matching_algorithm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the operation and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose uniqueness constraints, default-applied behavior, side effects, or what happens on duplicate names. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description contributes little.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification that is penalized in other dimensions.
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 with a nested body and meaningful optional fields, this description is too thin. It does not explain the purpose of matching-related parameters, defaults, or how this tool relates to document type management, despite having an output schema.
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 compensate by explaining the `body` object or any of its fields (`name`, `match`, `is_insensitive`, `matching_algorithm`). An agent gets no added meaning from the description about how to configure a document type.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new document type.' It is unambiguous about the operation and distinguishes it from update/delete/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to create a new document type versus updating or reusing an existing one. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving usage entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.