Skip to main content
Glama
shigechika

boxadm-mcp

by shigechika

external_collaborators

Identify external users with access to Box folders by scanning folders for collaborations outside the organization domain allowlist.

Instructions

List external collaborators on Box folders (current state, enumeration).

Walks folders the authenticating co-admin user can see (default from the root "All Files") and reports collaborations whose collaborator is outside the org domain allowlist — accepted external users or pending external invites. Useful to review who outside the organization has standing access.

Args: root_folder_id: Folder to start from ("0" = the user's root). max_folders: Cap on folders visited (default 150); capped discloses when coverage was cut short. max_depth: Folder recursion depth (default 1 = top-level folders only).

Externally-owned folders (this org is only a guest, not the owner) are out of scope and skipped — we cannot govern their collaborations, and their "external collaborators" are just the owner's own org accounts. They are reported separately under skipped_externally_owned (never silently dropped) and do not consume the max_folders budget.

Coverage note: limited to content the co-admin user can access (not provably 100% of the enterprise) and to the depth/folders caps. Returns folders_scanned, capped, fetch_errors (count of folders whose lookup hit an API error that outlasted the client's retries, e.g. a persistent 403 or a sustained throttle — coverage is complete only when capped is false AND fetch_errors is 0), count, external_collaborators (folder, owner, collaborator, role, status, expires_at), and skipped_externally_owned (folder_id, folder_name, owner). On failure returns {"error": ...}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNo
max_foldersNo
root_folder_idNo0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as skipping externally-owned folders, reporting them separately, coverage limits (capped, fetch_errors), and the return values on success and failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed and well-structured with sections, but slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and uses Args list. Every sentence adds value; could be tightened but overall effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool and absence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior, return fields, error handling, limitations, and edge cases (externally-owned folders). It is self-contained and complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description fully explains each parameter (root_folder_id, max_folders, max_depth) with defaults and semantics, including the meaning of 'capped' in output. Adds significant value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List external collaborators on Box folders' and specifies it's a current state enumeration. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on standing access rather than events or other metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit context on when to use (review who outside the org has access) and what is out of scope (externally-owned folders). Mentions limitations (co-admin user scope, caps) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shigechika/boxadm-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server