Creates a new workflow folder in the current GoHighLevel (GHL) location and returns the created folder object for organizing workflows.
Create a new workflow folder in the current GHL location. Returns the created folder object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new folder |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is unusual for a create operation, and the description does not reconcile or explain that (e.g., whether the write is irreversible). The description does add one piece of behavioral value beyond annotations by stating it returns the created folder object, which matters since no output schema exists.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped location, followed immediately by the return behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a single-parameter create tool the description covers the essentials and proactively notes the return value, compensating for the absent output schema. It omits failure modes such as duplicate names or permission requirements, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, already documented as 'Name for the new folder' with minLength 1. The description adds no constraint information (uniqueness, character limits, collisions) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('Create a new workflow folder') with scope ('in the current GHL location'). The resource is distinguishable from overlapping siblings like create_tag, create_workflow, and rename_folder/delete_folder. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 create a folder versus creating a workflow directly, no prerequisites (permissions, location context), and no mention of the folder-nesting or naming rules. The agent is told what the tool does but not when to reach for it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.