onedrive_rootLists all mounted OneDrive directories on this Mac. Start here for OneDrive — the mount paths it returns are what the other onedrive_* tools (onedrive_list_files, onedrive_read_file, onedrive_search_files) need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roots | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it doesn't describe what happens if no OneDrive directories are mounted, whether it auto-mounts, how many paths to expect, or whether paths may be stale/expired. With no annotations covering mount-state behavior, the description should add this context but doesn't.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides the essential context about how the result connects to the other onedrive_* tools. Every clause 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?
The tool has an output schema, zero parameters, and clear annotations. The description successfully explains what the mount paths are for and names the dependent tools. It's complete for a zero-input listing tool, though it could mention edge cases like zero mounted directories. Given the simplicity, the description is adequately complete.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds value by explaining what the return values (mount paths) represent and how they feed into the dependent tools. With no parameters to document, this earns a strong baseline score for clarifying the output contract.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Lists all mounted OneDrive directories on this Mac.' It clearly scopes to this Mac and distinguishes its role as an entry point versus the other onedrive_* tools that list/read/search files. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling onedrive 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?
The description explicitly says 'Start here for OneDrive' and explains that the mount paths returned are what the other onedrive_* tools (onedrive_list_files, onedrive_read_file, onedrive_search_files) need. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and even names the dependent siblings, giving the agent a workflow sequence. No exclusions needed since no alternative root tool exists.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.