Create a new folder in Alfresco by providing a name and optional parent folder, defaulting to the shared area.
Create a new folder in Alfresco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | No | -shared- | |
| description | No | ||
| folder_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / description / titleRemoved value: -"Description"Input schema / properties / folder_name / titleRemoved value: -"Folder Name"Input schema / properties / parent_id / titleRemoved value: -"Parent Id"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic effect (a folder is created) and gives no information about duplicate handling, whether parent_id is validated, required permissions, or side effects. This is minimal guidance, not meaningful transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise, though it is concise at the expense of completeness—a tradeoff reflected in the other dimension scores.
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?
Having an output schema helps with return-value understanding, but the description still omits critical context: how parent_id works, the meaning of the default, whether the folder is created in a shared location, and what errors or conflicts may occur. For a mutating tool with no annotations, this is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. In particular, parent_id defaults to '-shared-' but its meaning is never clarified, so an agent cannot reliably know whether it expects a node ID, a path, or a folder name.
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 clearly names the action and resource: creating a new folder in Alfresco. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like upload_document or delete_node, though it does not provide any detail about location or scope beyond 'Alfresco'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or about prerequisites such as authentication, parent folder ownership, or permissions. The only cue is the tool name, which does the work the description should be doing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.