create_termCreate a taxonomy term in a Drupal vocabulary by supplying required vocabulary ID and name; optionally set parent, weight, language, or description.
Create a taxonomy term in a vocabulary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vid | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| parent | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| langcode | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the operation mutates data permanently, what permissions are needed, whether duplicate names are rejected, or how 'parent' interacts with hierarchy. Only the bare fact of creation is conveyed.
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 is well front-loaded and wastes no words, but here brevity is under-specification rather than economy given a 6-parameter mutation tool. It is concise without being informative.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and two required fields, the description is far too thin to call this tool correctly. Key facts about hierarchy creation and vocabulary targeting are absent.
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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Critical semantics are left undefined: 'vid' (vocabulary machine name vs. numeric ID), the nested structure of 'parent', the meaning of 'weight' ordering, and 'langcode' defaults are all invisible to the agent.
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: creating a taxonomy term within a vocabulary. That is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as create_vocabulary, update_term, or get_term, so an agent gets no routing signal from the text itself.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the vocabulary must already exist), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer everything about context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.