documenso_create_folderCreate a folder for organising documents or templates. Documenso v2: POST /folder/create.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The folder name. | |
| type | No | What the folder holds. | |
| parentId | No | Nest it inside this parent folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description doesn't explain why creation is considered destructive (e.g., folder creation may overwrite an existing folder with the same name or be irreversible). With annotations providing some signal, the description misses the opportunity to add context about irreversibility, naming conflicts, or permission requirements.
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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides an API endpoint reference. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description is minimally adequate for a creation tool. However, given the destructiveHint annotation and lack of output schema, it should ideally explain what happens on success, whether folders can be nested (parentId parameter is mentioned only in schema), or any rate limits. It leaves important behavioral context unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameter meanings are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's already provided, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder') and clarifies its purpose ('for organising documents or templates'), which distinguishes it from siblings like documenso_list_folders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other create operations in the toolset.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description merely states what it does without indicating appropriate contexts.
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.