Create a folder within a project to organize test cases into a hierarchy, making large sets easier to navigate and maintain.
Create a folder. Create a new folder within a project to organize test cases.
Folders provide a hierarchical structure for managing large numbers of test cases, making them easier to navigate and maintain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, which sets a low bar, yet the description adds nothing about behavioral traits. It doesn't state that project_id must reference an existing project, that parent_id is optional and affects nesting, that duplicate names may be allowed or rejected, or what errors look like. A creation tool with destructive annotations and no behavioral context is a serious omission.
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?
Front-loads the action in a short opening sentence, but the following two sentences largely restate the same idea (folders organize test cases) with no added specificity. Not verbose, but the redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.
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 creation tool with a nested body, destructive/non-idempotent annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is inadequate. It omits prerequisites (existing project), hierarchy mechanics (parent_id), and any return or error information – an agent cannot confidently call this without guessing.
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 0% and the schema is a nested body with required project_id and name plus optional parent_id and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all – it doesn't mention project_id, name, parent_id, or description. An agent must infer everything from the raw schema field names.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a folder') and clarifies it lives within a project to organize test cases. This distinguishes it from sibling put_folder/delete_folder and from post_project. However, it doesn't differentiate the nested parent hierarchy from sibling folder operations explicitly, leaving minor ambiguity.
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?
The description explains the benefit of folders (organizing test cases hierarchically) but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like put_folder for updates or move_test_case for reorganization. An agent learns why folders exist, not when to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.