nuvio_create_collectionAdd a new collection to a Nuvio profile, preview changes with dry run, and undo via automatic snapshot.
Add a new collection to a profile. Supports dry_run and snapshots the previous state before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry). | |
| collection | Yes | ||
| profile_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it snapshots the previous state before writing and can be reverted via nuvio_undo. This tells an agent about side effects and recovery options, which the annotations do not convey. It does not contradict any annotation.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most relevant behavioral caveats (dry_run, snapshot, undo) in a compact second sentence.
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 tool's primary purpose and the undo/snapshot behavior, which is essential for safe invocation. However, it omits what the tool returns, does not clarify the profile_id semantics, and gives no guidance about the required nested collection fields beyond what the schema already states.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. The only parameter behavior mentioned is dry_run, which is already documented in the schema. The description adds no value about the collection structure or profile_id, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from required fields and names.
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 uses a specific verb and resource combination ('Add a new collection to a profile') that clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nuvio_update_collection or nuvio_delete_collection, but the 'new collection' wording makes the create intent unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for creating collections and mentions dry_run as a supported mode, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as nuvio_update_collection for modifying existing collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.