List all account folders that organize REG.RU services. Retrieve folder names and IDs to manage or reference them when grouping domains and billing items.
List all folders in the account used to organize services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a safe, read-only enumeration and the zero-parameter schema means there is little mutation risk, but the description never states permissions required, whether folders are nested/hierarchical, or anything about the response shape.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource stated up front and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
For a trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: what is listed and what folders represent. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the listing is flat or nested.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 ('List all folders in the account') and adds scope ('used to organize services'). It is distinguishable from sibling mutations like regru_create_folder and regru_move_service_to_folder, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of alternatives (regru_create_folder for creation, regru_move_service_to_folder for organizing) or of any precondition such as needing folders to already exist. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.