Create a directory, including parent folders, inside a sandbox's filesystem. Use it to set up paths like /srv/data before writing files or deploying apps.
Create a folder (and its parents) in the sandbox's files HTTP POST /sandboxes/{name}/files/mkdir
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | e.g. /srv/data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little beyond the action itself. It does note parent directories are created implicitly (a genuinely useful trait), but says nothing about behavior when the path already exists, idempotency, failure modes, or required auth.
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?
The prose sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good. However, it is punctuated as a run-on with the raw HTTP route appended on a second line, which adds mapping value but also reads as residue from API docs rather than agent-facing 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is thin. It never says what is returned, whether the call is idempotent, or what error to expect if the folder already exists.
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 only 50%: 'path' has an example (/srv/data) but 'name' is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'the sandbox's files' weakly implies 'name' is the sandbox identifier, but this is never stated, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder (and its parents) in the sandbox's files'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or contrast with the nearest sibling (write_sandbox_file) or clarify scope beyond 'the sandbox's files'.
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 on when to use this versus write_sandbox_file or list_sandbox_files, and no mention of prerequisites such as the sandbox needing to exist or be awake. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.