upsert_folderCreate, rename or reparent a NotePom folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| folderId | No | ||
| parentId | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedUpdatedAt | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| parentId | Yes | ||
| updatedAt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and idempotency behavior is covered. The description adds that reparenting and renaming are possible, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior around expectedUpdatedAt, conflicts, effects on child folders, or idempotency key handling beyond what the annotation already implies.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and it is immediately clear what the tool does. This is appropriately concise.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema, this one-liner is not enough for correct invocation. The agent is missing critical semantic context for idempotencyKey and expectedUpdatedAt, and the behavior of parentId (including null meaning) is not clarified. Annotations help with safety and idempotency, but the operational contract remains under-specified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters, but it only names operations. Some meaning can be inferred: name maps to the folder name, folderId identifies the folder, parentId supports reparenting. However, the required idempotencyKey and expectedUpdatedAt are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantics for two important fields.
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?
Description states specific operations on a specific resource: 'Create, rename or reparent a NotePom folder.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upsert_note or move_workspace_item, and aligns with the title 'Create or update folder' while adding specificity.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only lists operations, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and title. No guidance is given about choosing upsert_folder over move_workspace_item or upsert_note.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.