hex-mcp-server

hex-create-collection

Create a new collection in a Hex workspace. Provide a name and optionally add a description and sharing configuration.

Instructions

Create a new collection in the workspace.

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": "hex-create-collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Collection name
`members`	No	Sharing config: { groups: [...], workspace: { members: 'MEMBER' } }
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond 'create'. It does not say what permissions are required, how duplicate names are handled, whether 'members' is optional, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with a nested sharing object 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy for a mutation tool with a nested object parameter.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, three parameters, and a nested sharing object needs more than one sentence. Nothing is said about permissions, side effects, sharing semantics, or the result of the call.

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 description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 67% coverage the schema documents 'name' and hints at the nested 'members' sharing shape, but the 'description' parameter is undocumented in both places, and the description never clarifies required vs optional or the semantics of the sharing config.

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 specific verb (create) and resource (collection) with its location (workspace), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It is clear but does nothing to distinguish it from near-siblings like hex-edit-collection, hex-get-collection, or hex-create-group, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus hex-edit-collection (modify an existing collection), hex-create-group, or the collection-sharing siblings. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server