Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_create_namespace

Create a namespace in MODX to register a custom package's PHP classes. Specify the namespace name and optional paths to enable class loading for add-on development.

Instructions

Create a namespace.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "modx_create_namespace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathNo
assets_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides none. It does not say what happens on a duplicate namespace name, whether the operation requires elevated permissions, how path and assets_path affect filesystem assumptions, or whether the change is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At three words the text is not wasteful but is severely under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure to front-load because there is essentially no content beyond a restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no basis for constructing valid arguments or predicting the result of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description adds no meaning for name, path, or assets_path. The agent cannot tell from either source what format path must take, whether assets_path is optional in practice, or how the two paths should relate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a namespace'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it gives no scope or distinguishing detail against siblings such as modx_list_namespaces, modx_update_namespace, and modx_delete_namespace, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an existing path or component registration, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must guess at the context in which namespace creation is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools