Creates a new folder in the SAP BusinessObjects InfoStore repository under a specified parent folder.
Creates a new folder in the InfoStore repository under a parent folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| parent_folder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only conveys that the folder is nested under a parent; it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on duplicate names, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves too much unsaid: no auth/permission notes, no failure modes, and no clarification of the two required parameters for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies parent_folder_id via 'under a parent folder' and never addresses the 'name' or optional 'description' parameters, leaving all three effectively undocumented.
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 ('Creates') and resource ('folder') plus the repository scope ('InfoStore') and parent-child placement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_folders, get_folder_details, and delete_folder, though it doesn't name any of them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the parent folder must exist, authentication/authorization needed), and no mention of related tools such as get_folders to discover a valid parent_folder_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.