lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clio_list_folders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Clio folders for an authenticated project by routing through the exact governed connector account, ensuring only authorized folders are visible.

Instructions

Clio connector operation list_folders (platform tool clio.list_folders).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation 'routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' and requires an `effect` value of 'read' that 'Spring verifies.' This clarifies enforcement of read-only semantics beyond the annotation flags. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like result pagination, folder hierarchy behavior, or what the response contains, leaving the description only partially transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, with a brief opening and a structured Args list. Each sentence/line carries information without fluff. The routing constraint and the parameter explanations earn their place. It loses one point because the opening still fails to state the tool's primary purpose in plain language, and the Args section could have been more tightly integrated with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is covered elsewhere, and annotations cover safety. The description explains each parameter and the governing authority, which addresses much of the input complexity. However, it is missing a clear operational summary, the structure of the `arguments` JSON string, and any differentiation from similar folder-listing tools like `list_folder` or `xero_list_folders`. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does by listing all seven parameters with one-line definitions. It clarifies that `arguments` is a JSON string, `project_id` is an authenticated UUID, `connector_account_ref` is a project-bound alias, and `effect` is required and must be 'read.' Some explanations remain vague ('Exact project correlation reference', 'Stable business-action identity'), and the content of `arguments` is not detailed, but the provided semantics give an agent actionable meaning beyond raw parameter names.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the tool as a Clio connector operation named `list_folders` and gives the platform tool name, but it never plainly states 'lists folders in Clio' or describes the returned resource. The added routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') is a scoping detail, not a definition of the operation. This is above a pure tautology because it provides domain context, but the core action is still only implied by the tool name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_search, clio_list_documents, or the generic list_folder/search_folder siblings. The description mentions the governed authority routing, which hints at constraints, but it does not state scenarios, exclusions, or sibling selection criteria. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name.

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

Deploy Server