FileMCP

createDirectoryTool

Creates a named directory inside the AgentFiles folder, helping organize files for safe local operations on the FileMCP server.

Instructions

Creates a directory with the specified name. The directory will be created inside the 'AgentFiles' directory.

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": {
      "dirName": "<dirName>"
    },
    "name": "createDirectoryTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dirName`	Yes	The name of the directory to be created.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The result of the directory creation operation, indicating success or failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely useful non-obvious fact — the fixed parent 'AgentFiles' directory — but says nothing about existing-directory behavior (error vs. idempotent), permissions, allowed characters in the name, or path-traversal handling, all of which matter for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the action, the second the important scoping caveat, and both earn their place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a single-purpose mutation tool with no annotations, key operational details (collision behavior, name constraints) are missing, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description says 'the specified name' but adds no format or constraint details (e.g., whether slashes or relative paths are allowed) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a directory') and adds a scope constraint (created inside 'AgentFiles'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from createFileTool/overwriteFileTool, but the file-vs-directory distinction is clear enough from the name and description.

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 and no alternatives are named. Nothing tells the agent what to do if the directory already exists, whether nesting is permitted, or how this relates to createFileTool.

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

Deploy Server