eLabFTW MCP

create_item

Create a new resource item in eLabFTW with title, body, tags, status, and category ID. Returns the new item ID for linking or tracking records.

Instructions

Create a new eLabFTW database item (resource). WRITE OPERATION — requires the create write scope. Items belong to item categories; discover valid IDs first and never embed IDs in the title or body. Returns the new id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`body`	No
`tags`	No
`title`	No	Untitled
`status_id`	No
`category_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key traits: this is a WRITE OPERATION, it requires the create write scope, and it returns the new id. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. invalid category_id) or reversibility, which are secondary for a create call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the write/scope warning, then the ID-hygiene rule. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials (write nature, auth scope, ID discovery, return of new id) and an output schema exists so return details needn't be repeated. Only the tags/status_id parameters remain unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies category_id (item categories, IDs must be looked up) and warns against putting IDs in title/body, but says nothing about tags or status_id, leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a new eLabFTW database item/resource), and the parenthetical disambiguates it from experiment-creating siblings. An agent can distinguish it from create_experiment and create_experiment_from_template without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real operational preconditions: requires the create write scope, items belong to item categories, and valid IDs must be discovered first rather than embedded in title/body. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g. list_item_categories) that supply those IDs, but the when-to-use context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.