ACC.MCP

aps_get_top_folders

Retrieve root folders (e.g., Project Files, Plans) for an ACC/BIM 360 project, returning folder name, id, and item count to enable further folder navigation.

Instructions

Get the root / top‑level folders for an ACC / BIM 360 project. Common root folders: 'Project Files', 'Plans', 'Shared', 'Recycle Bin'. Returns folder name, id, and item count. Use the folder id with aps_get_folder_contents.

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": {
      "hub_id": "<hub_id>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "aps_get_top_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hub_id`	Yes	Hub (account) ID – starts with 'b.'.
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID – starts with 'b.'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation ('Get') and lists return fields, but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe potential side effects. Moderate transparency.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides actionable examples and usage guidance. Highly concise.

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?

Given two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, output fields, and usage flow. It is mostly complete, though could mention pagination or limits, but not essential for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (hub_id and project_id with format hints). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool gets root/top-level folders for an ACC/BIM 360 project, lists common examples (Project Files, Plans, etc.), specifies returned fields (name, id, item count), and distinguishes itself from sibling aps_get_folder_contents.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to get root folders and then use the folder id with aps_get_folder_contents, providing clear context and a follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list other alternatives.

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