statusChecks whether a folder is an open or closed collection, helping determine how documents should be filed and organized.
Is a folder an open or a closed collection?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "statusOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what the answer looks like, whether the folder must exist, or what an 'open' versus 'closed' collection implies behaviorally.
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 short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy. The single question is not front-loaded with a purpose statement, so nothing earns its place as guidance.
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?
No output schema exists and the description never explains what the tool returns, what values it produces, or how to interpret 'open' vs 'closed'. For a one-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this leaves an agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.
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% and there is a single required parameter, path, which the description never mentions. It doesn't say whether path is a folder path, whether it must exist, or what format it takes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 description is a question rather than a statement of what the tool does: 'Is a folder an open or a closed collection?'. It hints at the domain concept (open vs closed collection) but never says the tool returns a folder's status, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_folder, survey, get_rules or verify.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether status should be called before or instead of list_folder, survey or get_rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.