Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Files.com MCP Server

Files.com MCP Server

Official
by Files-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Create Group

Create_Group

Create a new group on Files.com with specified name, notes, user IDs, and admin IDs to manage team access and permissions.

Instructions

Create Group

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "Create_Group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGroup name.
notesNoGroup notes.
user_idsNoA list of user ids. If sent as a string, should be comma-delimited.
admin_idsNoA list of group admin user ids. If sent as a string, should be comma-delimited.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.65

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention that a new group resource is created, any side effects, or prerequisites. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add useful behavioral insights.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but under-specified, not efficiently complete. It does not convey necessary information succinctly; it is merely a title repetition.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 4 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides no context about return values, successful creation, or edge cases. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's function and consequences.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Group name.'). While these descriptions are minimal, the high coverage meets the baseline of 3. The tool description does not enhance or clarify parameter usage further.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 sibling tools like Create_User, Create_Folder, or Update_Group. There are no examples of appropriate contexts or alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools