Define a property in the Geo knowledge graph by specifying its name, data type, and optional description, enabling structured data modeling for your graph.
Create a property definition in the knowledge graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the property | |
| dataType | Yes | Data type for the property | |
| description | No | Description of the property |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'create', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but it discloses nothing about side effects, uniqueness constraints, whether the property is scoped to a specific knowledge graph, or what happens on conflict. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries a heavier burden than it meets.
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 a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though slightly terse given the number of sibling tools and the absence of behavioral context.
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?
Given no output schema, minimal annotations, and many closely related creation tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand expected return values, scoping, or failure behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the tool-level context is insufficiently specified.
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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters and the enum values for dataType. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the necessary explanatory work.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a property definition in the knowledge graph'), making the basic purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_type and create_entity by naming 'property definition', though it does not explicitly explain how a property definition differs from those alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling creation tools such as create_type, create_entity, or create_relation. The wording implies a use case but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.