redirect_bulk_createCreate multiple URL redirects in a single operation to update many paths at once, saving time when migrating or restructuring site content.
Create multiple redirects in bulk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| redirects | Yes |
| 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 for a mutation tool. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the batch is atomic or partial on failure, duplicate handling, or what happens to existing entries, leaving key write-related risks undisclosed.
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 with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It is front-loaded but adds almost nothing beyond the title.
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 explained, but for a bulk mutation with no annotations and a completely opaque item schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: per-item structure, failure semantics, and validation expectations are all missing.
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% and the single 'redirects' item type is a free-form object with additionalProperties:true, so the schema documents no fields at all. The description does not compensate by naming the expected per-item keys (source, destination, status code, language), leaving the agent guessing at input format.
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 (Create), resource (redirects), and scope (multiple/in bulk). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling redirect_create, which handles a single redirect, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Only the word 'bulk' hints at when to use it over redirect_create; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer the choice between single and bulk creation on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.