mcp-workato

list_folders

List project folders in your account, grouping recipes and connections for easy organization.

Instructions

List project folders in the account. Folders group recipes and connections.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic listing action. It does not mention pagination semantics, response shape, whether folders include hierarchy, or any permissions required. The agent is left without crucial operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful domain context. From a pure conciseness and structure standpoint, it is excellent.

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 simple list tool, the description is too thin given no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain pagination parameters, return format, or relationship to get_folder. An agent would struggle to know how to use pagination or interpret results without additional assumptions.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameters page or per_page at all. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the complete burden falls on the description, which fails to explain the meaning or expected values of these parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('project folders in the account'), and adds context by explaining that folders group recipes and connections. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recipes or list_connections.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_folder or list_recipes. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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