Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create a folder

create_folder

Creates a folder to organize campaigns, audiences, or accounts under an optional parent, with type-specific write scope required.

Instructions

Create a folder. Required API key scope: campaigns:write | audiences:write | accounts:write. POST /folders Required scope depends on body type: CAMPAIGN → campaigns:write, AUDIENCE → audiences:write, ACCOUNT → accounts:write. The body is validated before authentication, so a bad body returns 400 even without credentials. A duplicate name under the same parent violates a unique constraint (500).

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesJSON request body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: body is validated before authentication so a bad body returns 400 without credentials, and duplicate names under the same parent hit a unique constraint returning 500. That is real error-mode and ordering context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though the success response shape is not described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, endpoint, and error conditions in short lines. The generic scope list followed by the per-type breakdown is mild redundancy but it reads as a summary-then-detail structure rather than waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, validation ordering, and the main failure modes. The one gap is that it never says what is returned on success (presumably a folder object with an id) and doesn't mention max depth or other parentId constraints.

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

Parameters4/5

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 description goes further by tying the `type` value to a specific required scope (CAMPAIGN→campaigns:write, etc.) and by explaining that name uniqueness is scoped to the parent, which gives `parentId` concrete semantics the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a folder") and the body enum of CAMPAIGN/AUDIENCE/ACCOUNT makes clear this is a container-creation tool, distinguishing it implicitly from create_campaign/create_audience. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a folder versus creating a campaign/audience/account directly or nesting under an existing parentId. The scope information is a prerequisite, not a use-case rule, and no alternatives are named despite many siblings (update_folder, list_folders, create_campaign) being plausibly confusable.

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