@growi/mcp-server

Official

by growilabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

suggestPath

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes content body to suggest directory paths with permission constraints for saving in GROWI.

Instructions

Get suggested save paths for content in GROWI. Analyzes the content body and returns directory path candidates with grant (permission) constraints.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "suggestPath"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The content body to analyze for path suggestions (GROWI AI will extract keywords from this)
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by mentioning 'grant (permission) constraints' as a behavioral output detail. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits like response format or potential limitations beyond the annotations.

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 concise, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second adds the behavioral context.

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?

The description covers the essential functionality for a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema. It could be more complete by elaborating on the output format or examples, but it adequately informs an agent for selection.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The main description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives, thus meeting the baseline of 3 without further enrichment.

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 explicitly states 'Get suggested save paths for content in GROWI' and explains it analyzes content body and returns directory path candidates with permission constraints. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createPage or renamePage.

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 usage for suggesting save paths but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the extensive sibling list. Usage is inferred but not clarified.

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