AbleSign MCP

update_folder

Renames a media folder by specifying its ID and new title. Manage digital signage assets efficiently.

Instructions

Rename a media folder.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "update_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`folder_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'rename', which signals mutation, but omits effects on file paths, permission requirements, reversibility, or response details. The existing output schema is not referenced.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence front-loaded with the verb 'rename'. However, it is too brief, sacrificing essential context that could help the agent. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is missing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate for a rename operation but incomplete for an agent without annotations. It lacks behavioral details, usage guidance, and parameter clarification, making it insufficient for confident correct invocation in complex scenarios.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. 'title' and 'folder_id' are reasonably self-explanatory from names and types, yet the description could clarify constraints or usage (e.g., title uniqueness, folder_id source). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'media folder', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also modify folders (e.g., delete_folder), which is a missed opportunity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives like update_media_file or delete_folder. The description implies usage for renaming but offers no context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server