Retrieve detailed information about a specific Hugging Face Hub collection using its namespace and collection ID, so you can inspect models, datasets, or Spaces grouped in that collection.
Get detailed information about a specific collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | Yes | The namespace of the collection (user or organization) | |
| collection_id | Yes | The collection slug, with or without the namespace prefix |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about what 'detailed information' contains, error behavior for a missing/invalid collection, or any permission requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to convey much.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable. With no output schema and no annotations, however, it leaves the agent without any sense of what data comes back or how to recover from a bad identifier.
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%, so both parameters (namespace, collection_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier details beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb (Get) plus resource (collection) and scope (a specific one, detailed info). An agent can distinguish it from search-models/get-model-info style siblings by the resource name, but nothing in the text differentiates it from search-collections or explains what 'detailed' covers.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling search-collections that would be the alternative when the collection identifier is unknown. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'a specific collection'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.