Create a document collection (lowercase letter start; letters, numbers, underscores; max 63 chars). Max 20 collections per site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Collection name, e.g. todos or posts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses naming rules and a site limit, which is useful, but it does not mention return values, failure behavior, or permissions. It adds some value but lacks full transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key constraints without any wasted words. Excellent structure.
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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential constraints (naming and limit). While it omits response details, the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.
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?
The schema already describes the 'name' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description enriches it with format constraints (lowercase start, allowed characters, max length), adding meaning beyond the schema's simple example.
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 clearly states 'Create a document collection' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_collection and list_collections. The naming constraints add precision.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and context (creating a new collection), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The max-collections-per-site note provides some contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: subdomain availability, site content, collections, records, and API keys. There is no meaningful overlap between tools like upload_site and create_collection, or delete_record and upsert_record. Even similar operations (reserve vs. release, create vs. delete) are clearly scoped.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, such as check_subdomain_availability, clear_site, and rotate_site_api_key. Verb forms are uniform and predictable, making it easy to guess related operations. No mixed conventions or vague names.
With 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a demo platform covering subdomain management, site deployment, document storage, and API key handling. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers nearly all essential workflows: subdomain lifecycle (reserve, check, release), site deployment (upload, clear), collection/record CRUD (create, delete, list, upsert), and API key management (get, rotate). Minor gaps exist, such as no update_collection or get_site details, but these are not critical for core usage. Overall, the surface is functionally complete for the stated purpose.
