clickup_list_foldersList all folders in a ClickUp space. Provide space ID (e.g., "789"). Returns folder ID, name, and list count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | ClickUp API token | |
| space_id | Yes | Space ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folders | Yes | Array of folder objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'folder ID, name, and list count', providing expected outputs. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is stated first, followed by usage and return info. Efficient and well-structured.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects, read-only), the description covers purpose, parameter guidance, and return fields. Annotations provide additional behavioral context. Output schema exists but description already mentions key return fields.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example value for space_id ('789'), but this is minimal extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List all folders in a ClickUp space,' specifying a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('folders'). This differentiates from sibling tools like 'clickup_list_spaces' and 'clickup_list_tasks', which list different entities.
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?
It instructs to 'Provide space ID (e.g., "789")', giving a clear usage hint. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from other tools, making selection straightforward.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools. Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases chance of misselection.
Naming is highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case and camelCase conventions. ClickUp tools use 'clickup_' prefix while Pipeworx tools have varied patterns (ask_, scan_, validate_, etc.). No unified convention across the set.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Clickup', with only 6 ClickUp-specific tools. The remaining 29 are from Pipeworx, which is unrelated. The count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.
The ClickUp integration is incomplete, missing basic CRUD operations like update and delete tasks. The Pipeworx side is comprehensive but not relevant to the server's name. For a ClickUp server, coverage is poor.