Get folder
clm_get_folderGet visible folder path, visibility, limited access, permission and bounded member details; omit inaccessible folders.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID |
clm_get_folderGet visible folder path, visibility, limited access, permission and bounded member details; omit inaccessible folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Folder identifier"New value: +"ID"Input schema / properties / id / patternRemoved value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "allOf": [
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Folder UUID",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Folder name",
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "parentFolderId": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "allOf": [
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- },
- "path": {
- "description": "Visible ancestor path, leaf last",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "allOf": [
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Folder UUID",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Folder name",
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "parentFolderId": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "allOf": [
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "parentFolderId"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "parentFolderId",
- "path"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: results are limited to visible folders, inaccessible folders are omitted from the response, and member details are 'bounded' (i.e., truncated), which tells the agent to expect partial data.
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 dense sentence with no filler. The access/omission constraint is placed at the end as a qualifier, and every clause maps to a real return-set or behavior detail.
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, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does enumerate field groups (path, visibility, limited access, permission, members). However the 'bounded' member detail is undefined, and nothing explains shape, ordering, or failure behavior for an inaccessible or missing folder ID.
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?
There is only one required parameter (id, uuid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is fully self-documenting. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier or expected format, which matches the baseline for a fully-covered single-parameter schema.
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 sentence names a resource implied by 'folder path' and lists what comes back (path, visibility, limited access, permission, member details), but it never plainly states 'retrieves a single folder by its ID'. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like clm_list_folders or clm_rename_folder, so an agent must infer the scope from the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus clm_list_folders (list many) or the folder mutation siblings. The only implicit cue is 'omit inaccessible folders', which describes output filtering rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.