Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Rename or move a folder

update_folder
Idempotent

Rename or move a folder by updating its name or parent folder ID.

Instructions

Rename or move a folder. Required API key scope: accounts:write. PATCH /folders/{id} Requires accounts:write regardless of the folder's type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.
bodyYesJSON request body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context — the required scope and the PATCH /folders/{id} endpoint — but omits what happens to child folders on a move, which matters for a hierarchical mutation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the endpoint and scope. The scope requirement is stated twice in slightly different phrasing, which is the only wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

A no-output-schema mutation with a nested body needs to explain side effects; the description covers auth and routing but not reparenting semantics or child-folder behavior. Adequate for invocation, thin for a move operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions are placeholders ('JSON request body'), leaving the description to clarify nothing. It never explains that name renames while parentId moves, or that null parentId reparents to root.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb pair and resource ('Rename or move a folder'), which cleanly separates it from list_folders, create_folder, and delete_folder. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states an auth prerequisite ('accounts:write regardless of the folder's type') but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or what preconditions a folder must meet. The auth note is a gate, not usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools