Add or remove a project from collections to manage sharing and access. Pass the project ID with collection IDs to add or remove.
Add or remove a project from collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | Collection IDs to add | |
| remove | No | Collection IDs to remove | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a mutation ('add or remove'), but says nothing about required permissions, whether operations are atomic when both add and remove are supplied, partial-failure behavior, or what happens if an ID is missing or already present.
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 no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed detail rather than by tight editing.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a partially documented schema, the description is too thin: no permission requirements, no return/confirmation behavior, and no relationship to the parallel sharing tools. It is not adequate for correct invocation in ambiguous cases.
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 67% (add/remove documented, projectId bare) and the description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema — its phrasing even reverses the schema's direction ('a project from collections' vs. adding collection IDs to a project). With moderate coverage and a mildly confusing framing, it does not compensate for the undocumented projectId.
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?
The description names a specific verb pair (add/remove) and the affected resource (project sharing via collections), so the agent can tell what operation is being performed. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the three sibling sharing tools (hex-edit-project-sharing-groups, -users, -workspace), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 use this tool versus the groups/users/workspace sharing siblings, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., must the project already exist, must the collection exist). The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.