Scribe Mail

Create a folder

create_folder

Create a new, empty signature folder to organize signature templates. Folders created here are top-level (not nested). Use it only when no suitable folder exists: call list_folders first to reuse one, and use update_folder to rename an existing folder instead of creating another, since duplicate names are allowed. Creating a folder files nothing: to put a signature in it, pass the returned id as folder_id to create_signature or update_signature. Writes one folder and returns it with signature_count 0. Needs the folders:write scope; a blank name returns 422.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name for the new signature folder (required). Must not be blank (422); it does not have to be unique, so check list_folders first if a folder with this name may already exist.
`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."

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Name for the new signature folder (required)."New value: +"Name for the new signature folder (required). Must not be blank (422); it does not have to be unique, so check list_folders first if a folder with this name may already exist."

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the description corroborates and enriches this: it discloses the required folders:write scope, the 422 on a blank name, that duplicate names are permitted (explaining non-idempotency), that nothing is filed by the call itself, and the returned signature_count of 0. This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The core purpose leads, followed by the routing rule, the alternative, the follow-up action, the side effects, and the failure mode. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, error behavior, and cross-tool usage. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: that the name need not be unique (so list_folders should be checked first), that blank returns 422, and how the returned id flows into other tools. It does not add format or length constraints beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a new, empty signature folder') plus a scope qualifier ('top-level, not nested') that separates it from anything else in the sibling list. It explicitly names list_folders and update_folder as the alternatives, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition ('use it only when no suitable folder exists: call list_folders first to reuse one') and an explicit alternative with rationale ('use update_folder to rename ... since duplicate names are allowed'). It also notes the follow-up action (pass the returned id as folder_id to create_signature or update_signature), which is when-next guidance.

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

All Scribe Mail 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.