Create a new folder to organize password entries. Provide a label; optionally set a parent folder, hide it, or mark as favorite.
Create a new folder. Requires a label; parent folder id is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Folder label (required). | |
| hidden | No | Hide the folder and its contents from list actions (default false). | |
| parent | No | Parent folder id; omit for the base folder. | |
| favorite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds no extra behavioral context—no mention of side effects, permission needs, idempotency, or error behavior. The openWorldHint=true is left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what additional resources might be created.
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 no unnecessary words. It states the action and the key requirement immediately, making it easy to scan.
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 mutation with openWorldHint=true and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, failure modes, duplicate-label behavior, or what 'open world' implies in practice. An agent would have to rely heavily on inference, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 coverage is 75% and the description reiterates that label is required and parent is optional, adding minor clarity. However, hidden and favorite are not addressed in the description, and favorite has no schema description at all. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new folder') and explicitly names the required parameter (label). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_folders, update_folder, and delete_folder, so an agent can easily differentiate it.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only touches on parameter requirements (label required, parent optional) and gives no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships with sibling folder tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.