Batch folder mutations using XML commands. Multiple operations in one call.
XML commands:
Processing order: create_folder → update_folder → move_workflow → delete_folder
name= on create_folder is a local alias usable in folder_id/parent_folder_id/id within the same batch.
Examples:
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates_xml | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly lists delete_folder and move_workflow operations, which are destructive/mutating actions. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, contradicting the behavior described. This is a direct annotation contradiction.
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 structured with clear sections for commands, processing order, alias rules, and examples. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the single string parameter and the output schema, the description fully covers the XML syntax, operation semantics, ordering constraints, alias usage, and examples. It provides enough context for an agent to call the tool 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 only parameter, updates_xml, has no schema description, but the tool description compensates thoroughly by documenting the XML format, supported commands, attribute meanings, processing order, and local alias behavior. This gives the agent all needed information to construct the parameter value.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: batch folder mutations using XML commands. It names the resource (folders) and the verb (mutations/updates), making it distinct from folder retrieval tools like get_workflow_folders.
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 explains that this tool handles multiple operations in one call and provides detailed XML command examples. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative single-operation tools, but the batch-oriented wording and examples make the intended usage clear.
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.
