Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

List OneDrive files

list_onedrive_files
Read-only

List files & folders in the user’s OneDrive — the root by default, a folder’s contents (folderId), or a name search (query). onlyFolders:true lists folders only. Paginate with pageToken (the cursor from a previous call). Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNosearch — only items whose name matches this
folderIdNolist the contents of this folder id
pageSizeNorows per page (1–200, default 50)
pageTokenNocursor from a previous call
onlyFoldersNolist folders only

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: explains the different operational modes, the onlyFolders filter, and pagination cursor semantics. It reinforces 'Read-only' explicitly, which aligns with annotations. Does not disclose further side effects but covers typical use behavior adequately.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter usage in a compact, readable style. Every clause adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers all input modes, filtering, and pagination. It does not describe return fields or error handling, but for a straightforward list operation this is sufficient. The read-only nature is flagged. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, this is complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: clarifies that folderId lists contents, query is a name search, onlyFolders filters, pageToken is a cursor, and that root is default. This enriches parameter understanding beyond just descriptions.

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?

Clear verb 'List' with specific resource 'files & folders in the user’s OneDrive'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_drive_files by explicitly naming OneDrive and enumerating modes (root, folderId, query). An agent can immediately understand scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit usage context for each mode: root by default, folderId to list contents, query for name search, onlyFolders filter, and pageToken for pagination. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the name and context make the OneDrive vs Google Drive distinction implicit. Lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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