TimeLib MCP

create_collection

Create a product collection in a Medusa v2 store by specifying a title and optional handle, enabling organized grouping of products for catalog management.

Instructions

Create a product collection.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`handle`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), whether it's reversible/deleteable, what response it returns, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence — appropriately short with no wasted words. However, brevity here crosses into under-specification given the zero schema coverage and no annotations.

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?

For a 2-param creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover return values, validation behavior, relationship to categories, or handle auto-generation. Both parameters are undocumented in both the description and the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions nothing about the 'title' or 'handle' parameters — what a handle is, whether it's auto-generated, uniqueness constraints, or format requirements. The description adds no param semantics beyond the bare schema field names.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Create a product collection' with a specific verb (create) and resource (collection). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling create_category tool or explain what a collection is in this context. It's clear enough as a purpose statement but lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_category, list_collections, or how it fits in a collection workflow. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a store context is needed first via get_store_context) or when to prefer collections over categories.

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