mcp-pcloud-crunchtools

Pcloud Create Folder

pcloud_create_folder

Need to create a pCloud folder? This tool creates it, and returns success even if it already exists.

Instructions

Create a folder in pCloud, succeeding if it already exists.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pcloud_create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.0Sep 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedOutput schema / description
```
Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
First observedv2.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent behavior (succeeding if folder exists), which is a useful trait. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on failure, so it is only partially transparent. It avoids contradiction.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose and the idempotency detail. It is front-loaded and has no filler, but it omits essential parameter information, which slightly detracts from its efficiency. Still, it is well-structured for what it does include.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and an output schema present, the description is still sparse. It lacks any guidance on path format, usage context, or return behavior beyond the output schema. The idempotency note is helpful, but the overall description does not fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly. It falls below the minimum viable standard.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, path, with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, let alone its format, relative vs absolute path, or examples. This is a critical gap; the agent cannot know how to construct a valid path. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare type.

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 (create) and resource (folder) and adds the idempotent behavior 'succeeding if it already exists,' which clarifies its purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete, rename, and copy, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pcloud_create_public_link or file operations. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases, 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.

Deploy Server