Hook Detector

create_folder

Make a named folder on one tab to file hooks or finds in. The same name again on that tab (case and spaces aside) returns the folder already there with created false, so a retry never makes two. At most 200 folders an account (409 folder_limit_reached). Returns the folder: folder_id, kind, name, item_count, cover, shared, share_url, created. Same as POST /v1/folders. Free. Next: save_to_folder.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	the tab: "short" (Short form hooks), "long" (Long form finds) or "packaging" (Packaging finds)
`name`	No	1 to 80 characters; the same name again on the tab is the folder already there
`team`	No	true: your team's folder, which every member sees and edits (404 not_in_team without a team)
`api_key`	No
`description`	No	optional, up to 280 characters

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / team

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true: your team's folder, which every member sees and edits (404 not_in_team without a team)",
+  "title": "Team",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses idempotent retry semantics (same name returns the existing folder with created false), a hard quota of 200 folders per account with the 409 folder_limit_reached code, the 404 not_in_team condition, and that the call is free. These are exactly the behaviors an agent could not otherwise infer.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Very dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by idempotency, limits, return shape, endpoint equivalence, cost, and the next step. Every clause carries distinct information with no restatement.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the returned fields, and it layers in quota, error codes, idempotency, and workflow guidance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly — or to recover from failure — is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine value on top by specifying that name matching ignores case and spaces on a given tab — a matching rule the schema does not state. The tab/kind and team semantics are left mostly to the schema, so it is not a 5.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ("Make a named folder on one tab") and scopes it to the tab concept, which separates it from rename_folder, delete_folder, and get_folder. The "Same as POST /v1/folders" line pins down the exact operation for anyone familiar with the API.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit next step ("Next: save_to_folder") and explains the retry case, so an agent knows this is the entry point of a filing workflow. It does not name a when-not-to-use alternative (e.g. use get_folder or rename_folder if the folder exists), which keeps it below a 5.

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

All Hook Detector 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?