Skip to main content
Glama

create_category

Create a new category in a channel and get its ID. Set view type, progression, cover, expandability, and sections to structure content.

Instructions

Create a new category inside a channel. Returns the new category ID.

workspace_id: target workspace ID — get available IDs from list_workspaces()
view_type: display view type (e.g. "Grid", "List")
progression_enabled: track user completion progress
cover_show: show cover images in this category
expandable: allow the category to be collapsed
sections: list of {"name": "...", "type": "...", "reference_ids": [...]} for initial sections

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
sectionsNo
is_pinnedNo
view_typeNo
channel_idYes
cover_showNo
expandableNo
workspace_idYes
progression_enabledNo
notifications_enabledNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.18

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states a write operation ('create') and mentions the return of a category ID, but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or idempotency. Annotations indicate non-destructive but create operations inherently modify state; this is not contradicted but also not elaborated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is terse and mostly well-organized as a parameter list, but it is presented in a single paragraph without line breaks. It avoids irrelevant details but could be more structured for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, multiple required), the description provides partial context: it mentions workspace_id retrieval but not how to find channel_id or the full output schema. It covers the essential purpose but leaves some operational gaps.

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 explains six of ten parameters (workspace_id, view_type, progression_enabled, cover_show, expandable, sections) with examples for view_type and sections. It omits channel_id, name, is_pinned, and notifications_enabled, leaving some ambiguity for required fields like channel_id.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new category inside a channel and returns the new category ID. This is an unambiguous purpose, and the name 'create_category' aligns perfectly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides parameter hints (e.g., where to get workspace_id) but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from alternatives like update_category or archive_category. It is clear what the tool does, but not when to prefer it over others.

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