Skip to main content
Glama

create_collection

Create a new collection to organize threat modeling resources within the Devici API, enabling structured management of threat models, components, and mitigations.

Instructions

Create a new collection

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
descriptionNo
other_propertiesYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main MCP tool handler for 'create_collection'. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration, processes input parameters into collection_data, calls the API client to create the collection, and returns the result as a string.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def create_collection(name: str, description: str = None, **other_properties) -> str:
        """Create a new collection"""
        async with create_client_from_env() as client:
            collection_data = {"name": name}
            if description:
                collection_data["description"] = description
            collection_data.update(other_properties)
            result = await client.create_collection(collection_data)
            return str(result)
  • Helper method in the API client that performs the actual HTTP POST request to create a collection on the Devici API.
    async def create_collection(self, collection_data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Create new collection."""
        return await self._make_request("POST", "/collections", json_data=collection_data)
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about the tool's 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is optimal for what little information it provides.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with 3 parameters), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and presence of an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context that would help an agent invoke it correctly. The output schema existence slightly mitigates but doesn't compensate for the fundamental gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (name, description, other_properties) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'name' should contain, what 'description' is for, or what 'other_properties' represents. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Create a new collection' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of collection (e.g., threat model collection, data collection) or what system it operates in, though sibling tools suggest a threat modeling context. This provides minimal differentiation from siblings like 'create_threat_model' beyond the resource name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_threat_model' or 'get_collection'. This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/geoffwhittington/devici-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server