create_collectionCreate a new collection in your Apple Books library to organize titles. Requires write access and Apple Books quit; a backup is taken automatically.
Create a new collection in the user's Apple Books library. Requires write access and Books to be quit; a backup is taken automatically.
Args: title: Name for the new collection. details: Optional description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| details | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Input schema / properties / details / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / details / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.8.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context the annotations cannot convey: it requires write access, requires Books to be quit, and takes a backup automatically. It omits duplicate-title behavior and the creation response, keeping it out of the top band.
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?
Purpose and preconditions are front-loaded in two tight sentences, then the Args block. The Args section largely restates the schema, which is mildly redundant but conventional and not wasteful.
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, no annotations beyond the safety hints, and a trivial two-parameter schema, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, permissions, required app state, and backup behavior. Minor gaps (duplicate handling, return value) are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document both parameters: title as the collection name and details as an optional description. It compensates for the empty schema, though it adds no constraints such as uniqueness or length limits.
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 gives a specific verb ("Create") and resource ("collection") scoped to the user's Apple Books library, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_collection and delete_collection. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
It supplies real preconditions (write access required, Books must be quit, automatic backup) that tell the agent when the tool is usable. However, it never routes the agent among alternatives (e.g., rename vs create, or what to do if the collection already exists), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.