List folders within Workato, optionally under a specific parent folder ID, to locate and navigate recipe folders.
List folders, optionally under a parent folder id.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does 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 read-only nature (listing) and the optional parent filtering, which is helpful context. But it omits details about pagination, sorting, recursive behavior, error conditions, or response format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant or filler words. Every word earns its place.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly in most cases. It could be improved with response details, but the low complexity makes the tool relatively 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 schema has one parameter (parent_id) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by mentioning the parameter and its optionality, but it does not explain the expected value type beyond the schema's 'string' or any constraints like whether it is a numeric ID or path. This is adequate for a single optional parameter but not particularly rich.
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+resource pattern: 'List folders, optionally under a parent folder id.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_folder_assets and create_folder by specifying the exact resource being listed and the optional parent scope.
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 description implies the tool is for listing folders, optionally filtered by parent_id, which provides clear context for using it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.