Skip to main content
Glama

Box

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Box List Folder

box_list_folder
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the files and subfolders inside a Box (enterprise cloud storage) folder. Pass a folder id, or omit it to list the root folder ("0"). Returns each item's id, type (file or folder), name, size in bytes, and last-modified time. Use to browse a user's Box documents and files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return (default 100, max 1000).
folder_idNoThe Box folder id to list. Defaults to "0", the root folder.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "folder_id": "0"
+  },
+  {
+    "folder_id": "123456789",
+    "limit": 50
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields: "Returns each item's id, type (file or folder), name, size in bytes, and last-modified time." It also clarifies the default behavior for omitted folder_id, which aids the agent in anticipating output.

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 description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains parameter usage, and the third provides a use case. No wasted words.

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, read-only list tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, parameter behavior, return format, and usage context. Annotations cover safety, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (folder_id and limit), so the schema already documents their meanings. The description reinforces folder_id semantics with "Pass a folder id, or omit it to list the root folder ('0')" but adds little new information beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 tool's function: "List the files and subfolders inside a Box (enterprise cloud storage) folder." It also specifies the scope (folder id or root) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_get_file or box_search by focusing on browsing folder contents.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: "Use to browse a user's Box documents and files." It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only browsing purpose is evident, and the sibling tool names suggest distinctions (e.g., box_get_file for retrieving a specific file).

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

All Box 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, aided by detailed descriptions (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, some overlap exists among Pipeworx-based tools (compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) that could cause confusion without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used, but naming patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others with nouns or prefixes (box_get_file, entity_profile). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

At 31 tools, the server covers an unusually broad set of domains (cloud storage, data queries, betting, memory, subscriptions). This is on the heavy side and could benefit from splitting into more focused servers.

Completeness3/5

Gaps exist: Box storage lacks create/update/delete, Polymarket tools offer analysis but no execution, and some data domains (e.g., weather) have only indirect coverage. The surface feels uneven across the wide scope.

Resources