listClarityFoldersList the team's process folders with process and suggestion counts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | No | Duvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds that results include process and suggestion counts, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or access limitations.
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. It names the verb, resource, scope, and output in one efficient statement.
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 simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies scope and output counts, though the absence of an output schema means return-shape details like pagination or response structure are left unspecified.
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 single parameter team_id is already fully described in the schema with UUID format, fallback behavior, and API key versus OAuth semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but 100% schema coverage makes that acceptable.
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 clear action ('List') and resource ('the team's process folders'), and adds the output detail of process and suggestion counts. It is distinguishable from related tools like listClarityProcesses, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The team_id parameter description covers authentication behavior but not selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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.