Create a tag in a Collective by supplying a name and hex color code, enabling custom categorization of pages and content.
Create a new tag in a Collective. Requires a name and a hex color code (e.g. "#FF0000").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Tag name. | |
| color | Yes | Six-digit hex color code, with or without "#" (e.g. "#FF0000" or "FF0000"). | |
| collectiveId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / properties / color / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hex color code, e.g. \"#FF0000\"."New value: +"Six-digit hex color code, with or without \"#\" (e.g. \"#FF0000\" or \"FF0000\")."v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious creation action. It does not mention potential side effects such as duplicate tag handling or whether the creation is idempotent, leaving room for ambiguity about the operation's full behavior.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the action, required inputs, and a concrete example for the color format. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and required parameters, but it omits several contextual details: the meaning of 'collectiveId' is not explicit, there is no mention of the return value (since no output schema is provided), and potential error conditions (e.g., invalid collective or duplicate tag name) are not addressed. This leaves some gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.
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 coverage is 67% with descriptions for 'name' and 'color', and the tool description enriches the color parameter with an example format. However, the 'collectiveId' parameter lacks a description in both the schema and the tool description, forcing the agent to infer its meaning from the phrase 'in a Collective'. This partial coverage warrants a mid-range score.
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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'tag', and the scope 'in a Collective'. It also mentions the required parameters (name and color), making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_tag or delete_tag, so it misses a slight opportunity for further clarity.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that a name and hex color are required but does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., the collective must exist) or situations where create_tag is preferred over update_tag. This leaves usage decisions largely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.