[CMDB Write] Create a relationship between two CMDB Configuration Items
[CMDB Write] Create a relationship between two CMDB Configuration Items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Relationship type (e.g. "Runs on::Runs") | |
| child | Yes | Child CI sys_id | |
| parent | Yes | Parent CI sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description's only added behavior signal is the '[CMDB Write]' tag, which merely restates readOnlyHint=false. It says nothing about what happens when the same relationship is created twice (relevant given idempotentHint=false), whether existing relationships are affected, or what permissions are needed.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the write tag and the core action. Nothing is bloated, though the bracketed tag is mildly redundant with the annotations and the remaining space is unused rather than efficiently spent.
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 simple three-parameter create operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. It is missing duplicate-handling behavior and any indication of what is returned (no output schema exists), which an agent would want before creating relationships.
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%: each parameter (type, child, parent) has its own description, including the 'Runs on::Runs' format example for type. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: creates a relationship between two CMDB Configuration Items. The '[CMDB Write]' prefix signals the domain and write nature, which helps distinguish it from the sibling list_relationships reader. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_relationships or cmdb_impact_analysis, and no prerequisites (e.g. that both CIs must already exist, or that a relationship type must be valid). An agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.