Creates a folder or phase outline structure within a learning path or existing outline and accepts optional HTML description content for that section.
Legt eine Gliederungsstruktur (Ordner/Phase) in einem Lernpfad oder einer anderen Gliederung an. Beschreibung ist HTML (h2, p, strong, em, u, a, span style=color).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | Yes | Lernpfad- oder Gliederungs-ID | |
| description_html | No |
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 disclosure burden. 'Legt ... an' signals a mutation, but nothing is said about required permissions, what the response contains (e.g. the new ID), ordering/index behavior, or what happens on failure. The only substantive note is about HTML input format, which is really parameter guidance.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the HTML format note second. No filler, though the format note could be trimmed by referencing the schema field name to tie it to a parameter.
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 create tool with no annotations, no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description covers purpose and input format but omits return information, prerequisites (does the parent need to exist in a specific state?) and any conflict/ordering rules. Adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 coverage is 33% — only parent_id ('Lernpfad- oder Gliederungs-ID') is documented in the schema. The description compensates for description_html by enumerating allowed tags (h2, p, strong, em, u, a, span style=color), but the 'name' parameter is left completely unexplained and the description_html default of '' is not mentioned.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Legt ... an') plus a concrete resource ('Gliederungsstruktur (Ordner/Phase)') and names the two possible parent contexts (Lernpfad or another Gliederung). This clearly separates it from siblings like scobees_create_lernpfad or scobees_create_aufgabe, though it never explicitly contrasts with scobees_update_gliederung.
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?
The description implies when the tool applies (creating a folder/phase inside an existing Lernpfad or Gliederung), but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to scobees_update_gliederung for modifying existing structures. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.