Skip to main content
Glama

Dropbox

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Dropbox Create Folder

dropbox_create_folder
Idempotent

Create a new folder in Dropbox at a specified path. Returns folder metadata. Use to organize files or set up directory structures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath of the folder to create (e.g., "/New Folder")
autorenameNoAuto-rename if a folder with the same name exists (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError code if connection failed
messageNoError message if connection failed
metadataNoCreated folder metadata

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error code if connection failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Error message if connection failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "description": "Created folder metadata",
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Unique folder ID",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "is_dir": {
+          "description": "Always true for folders",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "Folder name",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "path_display": {
+          "description": "Display path of created folder",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "path": "/Archive"
+  },
+  {
+    "autorename": true,
+    "path": "/Projects/2024"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful fact that it 'Returns folder metadata,' but does not disclose other behavioral details such as error handling when the path exists or permission requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the return value ('Returns folder metadata') and the purpose. It does not mention edge cases like existing paths or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema. Minor gap but not significant.

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%, and the input schema already documents both parameters (path and autorename) with clear descriptions. The description only echoes 'at a specified path,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a new folder in Dropbox at a specified path') and identifies the resource (Dropbox folder). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dropbox_download, dropbox_get_metadata, and dropbox_list_folder by using the verb 'Create', which is unique among the Dropbox-related siblings.

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 organize files or set up directory structures.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the intended use case is obvious. This is a step below the highest bar because no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

All Dropbox 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server name 'Dropbox' leads agents to expect file storage operations, but only 5 of 35 tools are Dropbox-specific. The majority are Pipeworx data lookup and prediction market tools, creating a confusing mismatch between server identity and toolset.

Naming Consistency2/5

Dropbox tools consistently use 'dropbox_verb_noun', but Pipeworx tools mix naming styles: some use 'verb_noun' like 'validate_claim', others use descriptive phrases like 'entity_profile' or 'recent_changes'. The overall set lacks a unified naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to the server's name. The Dropbox subset alone is appropriately scoped with 5 tools, but the inclusion of 30 misc data tools makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for a server purportedly dedicated to Dropbox.

Completeness2/5

For the Dropbox domain, the tools cover only basic operations (create folder, download, list, search, metadata) missing update, delete, share. For the Pipeworx domain, the toolset is extensive, but the overall combination lacks completeness for any single coherent purpose.

Resources