Create a new folder in a Seafile library to organize files and subdirectories. Specify the path and optional authentication tokens to enable file management.
Create a folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| repo_token | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states a create side effect. It does not mention path validation, parent directory behavior, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens if the directory already exists.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse and front-loading the core action. It is extremely concise, though arguably too terse given the number of parameters.
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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits essential context about target location, authentication requirements, return values, and error behavior.
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%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining the six parameters. It only indirectly covers 'path' via 'folder' and gives no meaning or usage context for repo_id, library_name, account_token, session_token, or repo_token.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('folder'), clearly identifying the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like create_library, but the name and action are unambiguous enough for basic distinction.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as create_library or upload_file, and no mention of prerequisites like repo_id or library_name. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer any use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.