List all folders (codebase workspaces). Returns folder metadata only by default. Use include_pages=true to get nested page trees (warning: can be very large). Prefer get_folder(folder_id) for a single folder's pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_pages | No | Include pages nested under each folder (default: false). Warning: can produce very large responses (200K+ chars). | |
| include_archived | No | Include archived folders (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return behavior (metadata only), the effect of include_pages=true (nested page trees), and the size warning. It does not mention include_archived behavior, ordering, or auth, but the core behavioral traits of a list operation are covered.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, followed by parameter usage and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main use cases: default listing, optional page trees with size warning, and the pointer to get_folder. It could mention archived folder defaults, but the schema covers include_archived. Overall quite complete for a list tool.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by clarifying 'metadata only' and the size warning, but these mostly restate the schema. It doesn't add new information about include_archived. Adequate, not outstanding.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List all folders (codebase workspaces).' It clearly identifies what is returned by default and differentiates itself from get_folder by pointing to the alternative. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use include_pages=true for nested page trees, and 'prefer get_folder(folder_id) for a single folder's pages.' It also warns about very large responses, which helps the agent decide whether to set include_pages. This is model guidance.
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.
