GenFlick

create document folder

native.create_document_folder

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a folder in this document home. Use a saved folder id for a nested folder.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "work_id": "<work_id>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "expected_catalog_version": "<expected_catalog_version>",
      "read_skills": "<read_skills>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "native.create_document_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`work_id`	Yes
`arguments`	Yes
`read_skills`	Yes	Exact required native skills and their dependencies, copied from the accepted session bootstrap's skills array. Include only entries in that array. General mcp.* guides and native.{studio}.instructions are guidance, not native skill proofs.
`request_key`	Yes
`publication_proposal_id`	No	For native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
`expected_catalog_version`	Yes	For a new session, read a studios/{studio}/native/{pack} child toolset and copy invocation.catalog_version from a native tool descriptor. Do not use the top-level library version. For calls in an existing session, use that session proposal's catalog_version.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates and is repeat-safe. The description adds only the scoping fact that the folder lands in 'this document home', and it says nothing about what happens on name collisions, what the destructive flag actually covers for a create operation, or what authorization/context the call needs. The annotation baseline lowers the bar, but the added context is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the nesting caveat. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but this is a mutating tool with five required parameters and the description covers only the name/parent pair. Nothing is said about what 'document home' is relative to other roots, how request_key or expected_catalog_version affect the call, or what failure modes (duplicate name, stale catalog version) to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage sits at 50%, and 'parent_folder_id' has no schema description at all — the phrase 'saved folder id' is the only signal that it must be an existing folder identifier rather than a path, which is genuine added meaning. The description nonetheless stays silent on work_id, request_key, read_skills and expected_catalog_version, so half the parameters still rely entirely on schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder') plus its scope ('in this document home'), so an agent knows exactly what object type is produced. It does not distinguish itself from the many similarly named siblings (native.create_folder, native.create_element_folder, create_studio_document_folder), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives a conditional hint for nesting ('Use a saved folder id for a nested folder'), but that is a how-to detail rather than guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling folder-creation tools. There is no statement of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?