Create a new folder inside an existing allowed folder. Use for organizing files by adding subfolders programmatically.
Create one new folder under an existing allowed folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that only one folder is created and that it must sit under an already-allowed parent (no parent auto-creation, sandbox concept), but it does not describe failure/error behavior or permission requirements in detail.
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?
One tight sentence with the resource and its key constraint front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it could add a few words of value without becoming bloated.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally viable. It omits parameter format and any note on the 'allowed folder' concept or error behavior, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.
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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it (full path vs relative, format, whether it includes the folder name). With coverage well below 50%, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (Create) and resource (folder) with a clear constraint that it makes exactly 'one new folder' under 'an existing allowed folder.' An agent can distinguish this from read/list/search siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named apple_notes_create_folder.
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 phrase 'under an existing allowed folder' implies a prerequisite (the parent must already exist and be within the allowed set), giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.