Store a text document and receive its generated ID and metadata. Use optional title and tags to organize and filter content for later retrieval.
Store a new text document and return its generated id and metadata.
Args: content: The document body text (required, non-empty). title: An optional short title. tags: Optional list of tag strings for filtering/boosting search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it discloses that the call creates ('stores') a new document and returns generated id and metadata, and that content must be non-empty. It does not mention failure modes, indexing behavior, or storage side effects beyond creation, but the core create-and-return behavior is covered.
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?
The description is compact: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose before the parameter details.
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 3-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the non-empty constraint, and the return value. Gaps are limited to explicit when-to-use guidance and failure/edge-case behavior, which are not critical for basic invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: content is described as body text with a non-empty requirement, title as an optional short title, tags as optional strings for filtering/boosting search. This adds meaning beyond the bare types/defaults in the schema.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('new text document'), and the sibling tools (search/get/list) are clearly retrieval operations, so the tool's purpose is distinct. It also states the return value, which further clarifies the operation.
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 this tool is for adding a new document, in contrast to the retrieval siblings, but it never explicitly says when to use it or when to prefer search_documents/get_document/list_documents. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.