Create OpenAkashic Folder
create_folderCreate a folder inside an allowed OpenAkashic root.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
OpenAkashic
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention what happens if the folder exists, whether parent directories are created, or any permission effects. The vague 'allowed' constraint adds little clarity.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it does not waste space repeating schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple one-parameter create operation, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke correctly without more context. It lacks information on path validation, root constraints, and failure modes. The output schema may help, but the description itself is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'path' parameter format, whether it should be absolute or relative, or how the 'allowed root' relates to the path. The term 'folder' implies path is a folder location but leaves ambiguity.
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 verb (Create), resource (folder), and scope (inside an allowed OpenAkashic root). This differentiates it from sibling tools like rename_folder and list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'allowed root' hints at a constraint but does not explain how to determine allowed roots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there are overlapping areas such as search_akashic vs search_notes vs search_and_read_top, and confirm_note/dispute_note/review_note which serve related but different review functions. Descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, though some boundary cases require careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_notes, create_folder, delete_note, move_note). Even debug tools and compound names like search_and_read_top maintain the convention. The only exception is whoami, which is a common standalone verb and does not break the overall pattern.
Tool Count2/5
With 35 tools, the server has a large surface area that could overwhelm agents. The tool count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' in the rubric, even though the broad domain (notes, folders, search, reviews, publication workflow, debugging) partially justifies the number. The set feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides thorough coverage of the knowledge management lifecycle: note CRUD (upsert/read/delete/move), folder management, multiple search modes, review/confirmation/dispute mechanisms, publication workflow, stale note handling, image upload, and debugging utilities. There are no obvious dead ends; every major operation needed to manage and publish notes is represented.