Create a new collection in Blender, optionally nested under a parent collection, to organize objects in the scene.
Create a new collection.
Args: name: Collection name. parent: Parent collection name (empty = root).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the create action but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (duplicate names, missing parent), or whether the operation is reversible. The 'empty = root' hint for parent adds some context but not enough for a mutating operation.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args block is neatly formatted and each sentence contributes. Slightly more detail would be beneficial, but it remains clean and scannable.
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 create operation, the description is minimal but incomplete. It fails to explain the hierarchical relationship implications, duplicate handling, or parent existence rules. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, more context is needed for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic definitions for both parameters and explains that parent empty means root, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, it lacks details like name constraints or parent existence requirements.
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 the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'collection', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_collection or move_to_collection. The action is unambiguous and the tool name is not merely repeated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_collections or create_object. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., parent must exist) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.