Fetch the complete folder hierarchy tree to understand and manage the organizational structure of your workspace.
Get the full folder hierarchy tree.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_folder_tree"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral details. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not clarify whether the tree includes empty folders, files, permissions, depth limits, or other side effects. It only states the output concept without behavioral nuances.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex setup.
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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the exact resource ('full folder hierarchy tree'). It could potentially mention that it returns only folders and not files, but the name and phrasing already make this fairly clear. Given the low complexity, the description is close to complete.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required. It correctly avoids inventing needless parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('full folder hierarchy tree'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_folders' by specifying a hierarchy structure, and from 'get_page_tree' by targeting folders. 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_folders' or 'get_page_tree'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between related folder/list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.