CloudDesk MCP Server

by calinrus-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

cloud_mkdir

Create a folder in a connected cloud account by specifying the target volume and path.

Instructions

Crea una carpeta en una cuenta conectada.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "volume": "<volume>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "cloud_mkdir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`volume`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the folder already exists (relevant given idempotentHint=false), what permissions/auth the connected account needs, or whether parent paths are auto-created.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition does not compensate: parameter semantics, failure modes, and sibling routing are all missing. An agent would have to guess at volume/path semantics before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and both parameters (volume, path) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions neither, so the agent gets no meaning for "volume" (which drive/account?) or the expected path syntax — a real gap since both are required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Crea una carpeta") scoped to a connected account, so the agent knows it is a create-folder operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling o2_mkdir, leaving ambiguity about which backend to target.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and with an obvious alternative (o2_mkdir) plus related tools like cloud_move/cloud_copy, the agent gets no routing rule. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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