datalens_collections_createCreate a DataLens collection inside a parent collection or at the root when no parent is given.
Create a collection in another one, or in the root when no parent is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Title of the collection. | |
| parent_id | No | The collection to put it in; the root when left out. | |
| description | No | Description of the collection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not mention that repeat calls create duplicate collections (non-idempotent), what permissions are needed, or naming constraints.
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?
A single short sentence with the placement rule front-loaded and no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('in another one') but structurally efficient.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what the agent gets back (e.g., the new collection id needed for follow-up calls) and any permission or naming constraints. The schema carries the parameter detail, but the description leaves the agent under-informed on the result of the operation.
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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented, including parent_id's root default. The description merely restates the parent_id fallback behavior already present in the schema, adding no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a collection') and adds the placement rule (parent vs root). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like datalens_collections_move or datalens_collections_update, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus other creation or move tools (e.g., datalens_workbooks_create, datalens_collections_move), nor prerequisites such as required permissions on the parent collection. The only conditional stated is the parent/root default, which is really parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.