mendeley_list_foldersList all folders and collections in an authenticated Mendeley library, including parent-child relationships, to browse and organize references.
Return the folder and collection structure of the authenticated Mendeley library, including parent-child relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-oriented listing and adds useful context about hierarchy and authentication, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, pagination behavior, or whether results are flat or nested.
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 description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The key scope information ('authenticated library' and 'parent-child relationships') is front-loaded and every part of the sentence adds value.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, this description is largely complete. It covers the resource, scope, and structural detail, though an explicit note distinguishing it from mendeley_list_documents or stating that it is read-only would make it fully complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter documentation gap. The description reinforces that the listing scope is the entire authenticated library, which is the only relevant semantic needed here.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('folder and collection structure of the authenticated Mendeley library'). It also adds the key detail of 'parent-child relationships', which clearly differentiates this from document-listing siblings like mendeley_list_documents.
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 purpose statement implies this is the tool to use when an agent needs folder/collection hierarchy information. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving sibling differentiation mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.