Create a new template and select it as the current editing template. Input sample name, category ID, and template name.
创建新模板并选中为当前编辑模板。需先 login。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 参数名称 | |
| standard | No | 标准号 | |
| categoryId | Yes | 分类 ID，可通过 list_categories 查询 | |
| sampleName | Yes | 样品名称 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation action, the side effect of selecting the new template as current editing template, and the login requirement. However, it does not describe return values, potential overwrite or destructive behavior, or any other side effects.
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 that front-load the action and the prerequisite. There is zero fluff; every word earns its place. The structure is clean and easy to parse.
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 description covers the core action and a prerequisite, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., copy_template, save_template). It also doesn't mention what the tool returns or any post-creation steps. Given the 4-parameter complexity and no output schema, more contextual detail would be helpful.
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?
All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 verb (create) and resource (new template), and specifies that it also selects the template as the current editing template. This distinguishes it from editing tools like save_template, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides a clear prerequisite ('need to login first'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other template tools (e.g., copy_template or create_preview_session), nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.