list_foldersList all client folders for the account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | One row per client folder — id and name. | |
| meta | No | Page, limit and total row count. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / meta / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pagination for the list — page, limit and the total row count."New value: +"Page, limit and total row count."Output schema / properties / meta / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum rows per page."New value: +"Max rows per page."Output schema / properties / meta / properties / page / descriptionPrevious value: -"Zero-based index of the page returned."New value: +"Page index, zero-based."Output schema / properties / meta / properties / total / descriptionPrevious value: -"Total rows matching the query across all pages."New value: +"Total rows matching the query."Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation with `readOnlyHint=true`, `openWorldHint=false`, and `destructiveHint=false`. The description adds only scope ('all ... for the account') and no additional behavioral traits, which is acceptable but not enriching.
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 to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description, annotations, and schema fully cover what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.
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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('client folders'), and an explicit scope ('for the account'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like `list_clients` and `create_folder`, even without naming alternatives.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the full set of client folders at the account level. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing 'list folders' sibling, so the context is sufficient.
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.