OpenPapers

Create collection

create_collection

Create or retrieve a persistent local collection to organize academic papers and support reproducible research workflows.

Instructions

Create or retrieve a persistent local paper collection.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the collection is persistent and local, and that the tool may either create or retrieve, which implies an idempotent side-effect profile. However, it does not state what happens if the collection already exists, what is returned, or any error behavior.

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?

The description is one sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the qualifiers 'persistent local' and 'or retrieve' earn their place by adding behavioral context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core semantics of create/retrieve and persistence, which is adequate but still leaves gaps. It does not explain the return value, duplicate-name handling, or how the name parameter maps to identity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the sole required parameter 'name' at all. The parameter is inferable from the tool name and resource type, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear action ('Create or retrieve') and a specific resource ('persistent local paper collection'). The 'or retrieve' qualifier signals idempotent behavior, which adds useful specificity, though it does not fully distinguish the tool from list_collections, which also retrieves collections.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_collections or add_paper_to_collection. The phrase 'or retrieve' hints at an upsert-style use case, but there is no clear statement of when this tool should be chosen over siblings.

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