Skip to main content
Glama
sangingeum
by sangingeum

directory_create

Creates a single directory without replacing existing files; enable parents to include missing ancestors, use dry_run to validate first, and undo the recorded operation when safe.

Instructions

Create one directory and return operation_id and undo_available.

    Additive: no existing file or directory is replaced. parents controls
    whether missing ancestors may be created. dry_run validates and creates
    nothing. Otherwise the operation is recorded, and undo removes the
    directory only while everything inside it is exactly what the create
    produced.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
dry_runNo
parentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it says no existing file or directory is replaced, explains dry_run validation, states that the operation is recorded, and gives nuanced undo behavior tied to whether directory contents match what the create produced. The annotations already declare mutation and non-destructive hints, and the description is fully consistent with them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the action and return values, followed by distinct behavioral constraints. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple three-parameter mutation, it covers return values, additivity, dry-run behavior, parent creation, and undo limits, while annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of path semantics and error behavior, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description meaningfully explains two optional parameters: parents controls missing ancestor creation, and dry_run validates without creating. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the core path parameter's format, requiredness, and behavior when the path already exists are not described, leaving a meaningful gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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 one directory,' and also names the return values. The scope ('one') and directory resource make it distinguishable from file_create and directory_delete even though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear invocation context by explaining that the operation is additive, that parents controls ancestor creation, and that dry_run validates without creating anything. It does not explicitly route the agent to or away from sibling tools such as directory_delete or file_create, so it falls short of a 5.

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