drive_mkdirCreate a new empty folder on Proton Drive at a specified path. The parent folder must already exist; intermediate directories are not created.
Create a new empty folder on Proton Drive. Fails if it exists or the parent is missing; does not create intermediate directories, so create each level separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute remote path of the new folder, e.g. /my-files/NewFolder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute remote Drive path for the new folder (must start with '/'). E.g. /my-files/NewFolder"New value: +"Absolute remote path of the new folder, e.g. /my-files/NewFolder."v0.1.2Input schema / properties / path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Remote Drive path for the new folder. E.g. /my-files/NewFolder"New value: +"Absolute remote Drive path for the new folder (must start with '/'). E.g. /my-files/NewFolder"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations covering only destructiveHint=false, the description carries the behavioral burden well, disclosing the two failure conditions (existing folder, missing parent) and the non-recursive mkdir semantics. This is precisely the pre-invocation knowledge an agent needs to avoid a predictable error.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the failure/recursion caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers purpose, failure modes, and recursion behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the path parameter is already documented with an absolute-path example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for a single well-documented parameter.
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 and resource ("Create a new empty folder on Proton Drive"), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like drive_rename, drive_move, and drive_copy. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.
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 gives clear operational context: it fails when the folder exists or the parent is missing, and it explicitly instructs the caller to create each level separately rather than relying on recursive creation. It does not name an alternative sibling for recursive creation (none appears to exist), so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.