MappaIQ

Create map folder

create_map_folder

Create a Library folder to organize MAPS (e.g. 'make a folder called Clients', 'create a DFW folder inside Texas'). This is different from nesting layers (use move_layer for that). Optionally nest it inside an existing folder with parentFolderName.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the new folder.
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`llm_model`	Yes	The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
`conversation_id`	No	Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.
`parentFolderName`	No	Existing folder to create this one inside (case-insensitive). Omit to create at the Library root.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a write op (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: omitting parentFolderName creates at the Library root, and parent matching is case-insensitive. It says nothing about duplicate-name handling, failure when the parent does not exist, or idempotency, so it stays at a moderate level.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the disambiguation and the optional nesting parameter. The inline examples clarify intent without padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the optional nesting behavior, and the primary disambiguation. It is slightly thin on failure/edge behavior if the named parent folder is absent, but otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 is 100%, so name, context, llm_model, conversation_id and parentFolderName are all already documented in the schema. The description only re-states the parentFolderName behavior (existing folder, case-insensitive, omit for root) rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a Library folder to organize MAPS') and even gives natural-language examples of the user request it fulfills. It explicitly separates itself from the layer-nesting capability an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (organizing maps into folders) and an explicit when-not with a named alternative ('use move_layer for that'), which covers the main confusion vector. It does not point at related folder tools such as list_map_folders for verifying an existing parent or move_map_to_folder, so routing is good but not exhaustive.

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

All MappaIQ 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?