List folders in a Mendeley library or group, returning each folder's ID and parent ID to rebuild the folder tree. Use cursor to fetch more.
List folders in the connected user library or, with groupId, in a Mendeley group. Each folder includes its id and parent_id for reconstructing the tree. Pass nextCursor to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| groupId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses that each returned folder carries id and parent_id for tree reconstruction and that results are cursor-paginated. The only defect is that it calls the paging token 'nextCursor' while the schema names the field 'cursor', which is a naming mismatch rather than an annotation conflict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then return shape, then pagination. Every sentence carries information, though the 'nextCursor' wording introduces avoidable confusion about the actual field name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema it usefully describes the returned folder fields and the pagination loop, which is the most important missing piece. However, it omits the meaning/limits of 'limit' and misnames the cursor parameter, leaving an agent to guess at part of the call contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains groupId (group vs. user-library selection) and the pagination token, but leaves 'limit' entirely unexplained and mislabels the cursor field as 'nextCursor'. Partial compensation only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (folders) with an explicit scope split: the connected user library by default, or a Mendeley group when groupId is passed. This is enough for an agent to separate it from campus_mendeley_list_folder_documents and campus_mendeley_list_groups without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the condition that selects each mode ('with groupId, in a Mendeley group') and tells the agent to pass the cursor to continue paging. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative or stating when not to use this tool, but the context for both optional-parameter branches is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.