Webflow MCP Server

collection_fields_create_option

Create a new option field in a Webflow CMS collection with predefined choices. Define the field's name, options, and metadata to structure content selection.

Instructions

Create a new option field in a CMS collection with predefined choices.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "collection_fields_create_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes
`collection_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for the Collection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a create operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens with existing options. It also doesn't mention return value or error behavior. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having a complex nested schema and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the structure of 'request' or required fields, nor does it mention return values or usage context. The tool would be hard to invoke correctly from the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (the top-level 'request' property lacks a description), but the schema provides detailed descriptions for all nested fields. The description adds only the hint 'predefined choices,' which maps to metadata.options. This is helpful but does not significantly compensate for the missing request description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: create a new option field in a CMS collection with predefined choices. The verb 'create' is specific, and the resource 'option field' distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_fields_create_static and collection_fields_create_reference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for option fields with predefined choices, which gives some indication of when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or corner cases. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_static or create_reference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.