Create a Raindrop collection with a required title, and optionally set sort order, display view, public access, or a parent collection to organize bookmarks.
Create a new collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order number | |
| view | No | Display view: list, grid, or masonry | list |
| title | Yes | Collection name | |
| public | No | Make collection publicly accessible | |
| parentId | No | Parent collection ID for nesting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'Create a new collection' without stating whether creation is idempotent, whether duplicate titles are allowed, what defaults apply beyond the schema's view=list and public=false, or what side effects occur. For a write operation, this is a significant disclosure gap.
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 four-word sentence with zero waste and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification — it earns its place but could have used the available space to add value.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It never explains what a collection is in this system, whether the response returns the new collection or its ID (critical for later nesting via parentId or attaching raindrops), or how parentId nesting behaves. For a tool with 5 semantically rich parameters, this is incomplete.
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 every parameter (sort, view, title, public, parentId) already carries a description in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies: the schema does the heavy lifting and the description neither helps nor hurts.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new collection'), which clearly identifies the operation and inherently distinguishes it from read, update, and delete siblings as well as from create_raindrop. However, it adds nothing beyond what the tool name already conveys — no scope, constraints, or behavior — so it stops short of the 5 bar.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus update_collection (modifying an existing collection), create_raindrop (creating a child raindrop), or get_collections (reading existing ones). There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering (e.g., needing parentId to pre-exist), or context that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.