rag_create_workspaceCreate a dedicated AnythingLLM workspace named after a repository (e.g., owner/repo) to organize and isolate RAG context for that project.
Create an AnythingLLM workspace named after the repo (e.g. 'owner/repo'). Returns {name, slug}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Repo identity, e.g. 'owner/repo' |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return value ({name, slug}), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the workspace already exists, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. For a creation tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, gives a concrete naming example, and states the return shape. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, naming, and return value. However, it lacks behavioral details like idempotency or error behavior (e.g., duplicate workspace). Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not complete.
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 schema already documents the 'name' parameter as 'Repo identity, e.g. 'owner/repo''. The description reinforces this with the same example but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 an AnythingLLM workspace'), the naming convention ('named after the repo, e.g. 'owner/repo''), and the return value ('Returns {name, slug}'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rag_find, rag_search, rag_write, and rag_forget, which all perform different operations.
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 the tool is for creating a workspace tied to a repo, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the workspace must not already exist) or when a sibling like rag_write would be more appropriate. The naming convention gives some context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.