astrbot-mcp

fs_mkdir

Creates a directory at a relative path inside the sandbox for organizing files; write access must be enabled.

Instructions

在沙箱内创建目录（需开启 files.allow_write）。

Args: path: 相对于沙箱根目录的目录路径。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fs_mkdir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the write-permission gate and the sandbox confinement. It does not say what happens if the directory already exists (error vs. no-op), whether parent directories are created, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two short lines: purpose and permission gate front-loaded, then the single argument. No filler whatsoever.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the permission gate is covered. Still missing for a mutation tool with zero annotations: overwrite/idempotency behavior on an existing directory and whether intermediate directories are created.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (bare string 'path'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the path as relative to the sandbox root, which is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs. It stops short of examples or absolute-path behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('创建目录') scoped to the sandbox, which is clearly distinct from the file-writing sibling fs_write. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the create-directory operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite '需开启 files.allow_write' tells the agent a gate must be open before calling, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to fs_write or fs_delete, so usage is only implied.

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