list_attachment_foldersLists folders permitted for file attachments and the destination for received attachments, indicating whether access is free or requires a Yes/No confirmation.
Show which folders on this computer files may be attached from (freely, or only after a Yes/No dialog on the computer) and where received attachments are saved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the consent model (some folders are free, others trigger a per-file Yes/No dialog on the computer). This is policy information an agent cannot get from the annotations, though the shape of the returned data (paths, flags) is left unstated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource in the first clause. The parenthetical clarifying the permission model interrupts the sentence slightly but carries information worth the space.
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?
A zero-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema is nearly self-contained, and the description covers both halves of what is read (attachable source folders and the received-attachment destination). It could say more about how the result is returned, but nothing essential for calling it 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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly spends no words on inputs.
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?
Specific verb ("Show") plus a precisely scoped resource: folders on this computer that files may be attached from, and where received attachments land. The phrase "on this computer" implicitly separates it from the mail-folder sibling list_folders, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a read-only discovery call for attachment configuration, but the description never says when to call it or when to prefer list_folders or save_attachments instead. No prerequisites or call-ordering guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.