Creates a named crate in the music library and returns its existing ID if the name already exists.
Create a named crate (idempotent: same name returns the existing id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses idempotency and the result of reusing a name, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the schema. It does not mention errors or permission requirements, but for this simple create operation the key behavior is covered.
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?
A single sentence with a useful parenthetical. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is included without any wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple: one required string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return value for a newly created crate, but the idempotent pattern makes that easy to infer.
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?
The schema has a single required 'name' string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'name' is the crate's identifier and is central to the idempotent behavior, but it does not add format, length, or uniqueness constraints. It partially compensates for the missing schema description.
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 — 'Create a named crate' — and adds an important distinguishing behavior: idempotency with the same name returning the existing id. This clearly separates it from siblings like crate_add and crate_list.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when a named crate needs to be created. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as crate_add, so the routing burden falls on the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.