Create a complete schema in one call by defining properties and types, with types referencing property names for structured knowledge graphs.
Build a complete schema (properties + types) in one call. Creates all properties first, then creates types that reference those properties by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | Yes | Types to create | |
| properties | Yes | Properties to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it creates all properties first, then creates types that reference those properties by name. This reveals the execution order and dependency structure. It does not mention failure behavior or rollback, but the key orchestration semantics are exposed.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the one-call distinction, while the second sentence explains the essential ordering behavior. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with two required nested arrays and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation logic well: what is built, in what order, and how the parts relate. It does not describe return values or failure semantics, but an agent has enough information to construct a valid call.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the 'properties' and 'types' arrays: properties are created first and types reference them by name. This clarifies how the 'propertyNames' field relates to the 'properties' array, which is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 specific action ('Build a complete schema'), identifies the resource ('properties + types'), and emphasizes the one-call batch behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_property and create_type, which operate on individual components.
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?
The phrase 'in one call' provides clear context that this tool is for building a full schema atomically in a single operation, contrasting with incremental creation via siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternatives or state when not to use them, but the intended usage is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.