Webflow MCP Server

collection_fields_create_static

Create a new static field in a Webflow CMS collection. Set the field type (text, number, date, etc.), display name, and optional properties.

Instructions

Create a new static field in a CMS collection (e.g., text, number, date, etc.).

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_static"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' with no details about permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The examples are inline and helpful.

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?

The tool involves a nested request object with required subfields and an enum of types, yet the description offers no guidance on constructing the request, return values, or prerequisites. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% (the 'request' parameter lacks a top-level description). The description gives field type examples (text, number, date) that map to the 'type' enum, but it does not explain the required structure of the 'request' object (e.g., that it must include 'type' and 'displayName'). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('a new static field in a CMS collection'), and gives examples of field types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_fields_create_option and collection_fields_create_reference, which handle non-static field types.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The word 'static' implies use for static vs. other field types, but the description does not explicitly direct users to sibling tools for non-static cases. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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