Fetches metadata for a SAP BusinessObjects repository folder, such as name, CUID, parent ID, and description. Use it to inspect folder hierarchy and identify folder properties.
Retrieves metadata of a repository folder (name, CUID, parent ID, description).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 disclosure burden. 'Retrieves' implies a safe read, and it names the fields returned, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing folders, permission requirements, or rate limits.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical field list is compact and informative. No wasted text, though there is little structure beyond the single clause.
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 need not be explained, and the description is adequate for a simple single-resource getter. It still leaves the input identifier semantics and failure modes unspecified, which is a notable gap for a 1-required-param tool with no annotations.
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% and the single required parameter folder_id has no description anywhere. The description mentions 'CUID' only as a returned field, not as the expected input identifier format, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 and resource ('Retrieves metadata of a repository folder') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_folders (list) tool, so an agent must infer that this one fetches a single folder by ID.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_folders, create_folder, delete_folder, or related get_*_details siblings. Usage is only implied by the singular 'folder' noun and the required folder_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.