Creates a folder in Speechify with a defined name and optional parent, and can reuse an existing folder when configured. Use it to organize files in a signed-in Speechify session.
Perform verified Speechify create folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| if_exists | No | error | |
| parent_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| expected_updated_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, what 'verified' entails, or how idempotency_key and expected_updated_at affect the outcome. Mutation semantics and the error-vs-use_existing fallback are entirely undisclosed.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required idempotency_key, the description is wholly inadequate; an agent cannot call this correctly without reverse-engineering the schema.
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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them: name, item_id, parent_id (nullable), if_exists enum, idempotency_key, and expected_updated_at are all left for the agent to guess.
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 phrase 'create folder' does name a verb and resource, but the sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name wrapped in unexplained filler ('Perform verified'). It never clarifies what 'verified' means or how folder creation differs from siblings like speechify_upload_text or speechify_move_item.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting this over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a parent folder or an existing item. An agent gets nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.