mendeley_create_folderCreate a new folder in your reference library to organize papers, optionally nested under a parent folder or placed in a group library.
Create a new folder in the personal library, nested under a parent folder, or in a group context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| parent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the placement behavior (nesting, group context), which is genuinely useful, but it does not disclose that this is a state-mutating write, how duplicate folder names are handled, permission requirements, or failure modes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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 22-word sentence with zero wasted words. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the three placement contexts. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description adequately covers the three creation modes. However, it omits guidance on sourcing parent_id/group_id and, because no annotations exist, leaves the behavioral safety profile undisclosed — gaps that matter for a state-changing tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'name' maps to the folder name, 'parent_id' to the nesting behavior, and 'group_id' to the group context. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required, where to obtain valid parent_id or group_id values (e.g., via mendeley_list_folders), or the relationship between group context and personal library.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new folder'), and enumerates three distinct scopes: personal library, nested under a parent, or in a group context. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mendeley_rename_folder, mendeley_delete_folder, and mendeley_list_folders, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool — whenever a new folder is needed — and sketches the three usage contexts via 'nested under a parent folder, or in a group context.' However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternative tools, and it doesn't explain when each placement mode (root vs. parent_id vs. group_id) is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.