Create a folder path, including any missing parent folders, to organize bookmarks or research files. Use it when you need a nested directory without creating each level manually.
Create a folder path (like mkdir -p).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'mkdir -p' analogy usefully implies recursive parent creation and non-erroring on existing paths, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens when the path already exists as a file.
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 short sentence, purpose front-loaded, and the parenthetical analogy compresses a lot of behavioral meaning into three words. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single-parameter surface is simple. However, for an unannotated mutating filesystem tool the description should say more about error behavior and path requirements, which it leaves to the mkdir analogy.
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?
Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does little work. The description adds that 'folder' is a path (not just a name), implying nesting and the -p semantics, which is meaningful value, but no format examples or absolute-vs-relative guidance are given.
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 path), and the 'mkdir -p' analogy pins down that intermediate directories are created in one call. It is clearly distinct from siblings like move, rename, or trash, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the sibling 'add' or 'move' tools that also touch the filesystem. The 'like mkdir -p' note is a behavioral hint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.