Create a new collection for organizing Blender scene objects, with optional nesting under a parent collection.
Create a new collection, optionally under a parent collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent | No | Scene Collection |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the parent does not exist. The default parent value is not explained either.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It states the core action and the optionality of the parent, which is efficient and front-loaded.
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 creation operation with no annotations and no output schema description, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites (like whether the parent collection must already exist), or error handling. Given the low parameter count, it could be acceptable, but for a mutating operation more context is expected.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'parent' is optional ('optionally under a parent collection'), giving some semantic context, but does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter beyond its presence in the schema. This is partial compensation.
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 the tool creates a new collection, optionally under a parent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_collection and list_collections by its verb and object, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 given on when to use this tool versus related tools like move_to_collection or list_collections. The context of creating a new collection is obvious, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., parent must exist) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.