list_foldersLists the account's folders and returns the number of land plots in each, so you can find and manage saved plot groupings.
The account's folders, each with how many plots are in it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one piece of behavior annotations cannot: each entry includes a plot count. It does not disclose ordering, whether all folders are returned or the result is paginated/truncated, or whether empty folders appear.
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?
It is only one short clause, so nothing is padded, but it is a sentence fragment with no verb and the key fact (plot counts) arrives after the resource. Zero waste, yet borderline under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured.
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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description tells the agent what comes back at a high level (folders plus plot counts). With no output schema, it should say more about the shape of each folder entry (fields, ordering, completeness), which is the remaining gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% anyway. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description identifies the resource (the account's folders) and its distinguishing payload (per-folder plot counts), which separates it from list_plots and find_place among the siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list', so the operation is inferred from the name rather than stated, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of the create_folder/rename_folder/delete_folder siblings, and no note of prerequisites or ordering. A single sentence of when-to-use would be needed to rise above 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.