Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Create a Drive folder

create_drive_folder

Create a folder in the user’s Google Drive (optionally nested under parentId) to organize saved files. Returns the folder id + webViewLink. Use that ID as update_drive_file’s moveToFolderId or as parentId for a nested folder. NOTE: save_to_drive’s folder is a NAME, not this id — it find-or-creates a folder by that name, so pass the folder NAME there (or omit and just save, then move with update_drive_file).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesfolder name
parentIdNoparent folder id for a nested folder (default: Drive root)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the return value (folder id + webViewLink) and the crucial distinction between folder NAME and ID when interacting with save_to_drive. This is more than the schema provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a bit long but front-loaded with the main purpose and return value. The extra note about how to use the ID and the save_to_drive distinction is valuable and earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple create tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It states the return values, explains nesting, and disambiguates from a confusing sibling (save_to_drive). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% (both name and parentId are described). The description reiterates the optional parentId and its default (Drive root), but doesn't add new semantics beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('a folder in the user’s Google Drive'), and the optional nesting behavior. It distinctly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_onedrive_folder and create_doc by specifying 'Drive folder'.

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?

The description explicitly explains when and how to use this tool: to organize saved files, and it gives concrete downstream usage of the returned ID (as moveToFolderId or parentId). It also warns about the gotcha with save_to_drive's folder name, providing clear exclusions.

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

All Hermoso toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources