OutreachPilot MCP Server

list_folders

Lists contact folders in the workspace, providing names, IDs, and contact counts for organizing campaign groups.

Instructions

List all contact folders in the workspace. Folders organize contacts into groups for campaigns. Returns folder names, IDs, and contact counts.

Tool call template

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": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max folders to return. Default 100.
`search`	No	Filter folders by name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (names, IDs, contact counts) but does not disclose behaviors like default ordering, pagination limits, or error conditions. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal for a tool without annotation support.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence adds relevant context about folder purpose and return values. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, the organizational role of folders, and the return fields. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It lacks explicit details about pagination behavior or sorting, but given the simplicity, it reaches a 4.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (limit and search) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description does not add additional meaning about parameter usage or syntax beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List all contact folders in the workspace.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_contacts and search_contacts by specifying the resource (folders). The additional context about folders organizing contacts for campaigns clarifies the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool by mentioning that folders organize contacts for campaigns, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_contacts or search_contacts. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the guidance is only implied.

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