vimeo-mcp

Create a folder

create_folder

Create a new folder in a Vimeo library to organize videos into logical groups. Requires the create scope.

Instructions

Create a folder. Needs the create scope.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Folder name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0Oct 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.1Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the required 'create' scope, which is genuine context the annotations do not provide, but it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior or side effects of the non-idempotent create.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The prerequisite sentence is slightly clipped but still earns its place by naming the scope requirement.

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?

For a single-parameter create tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth adequately. It omits what happens on duplicate names and what the call returns, which an agent calling a non-idempotent creator would benefit from knowing.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no syntax, naming-rule, or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_showcase or upload_video. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related folder operations such as add_videos_to_folder or update_folder, 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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only extra sentence is a prerequisite ('Needs the create scope'), which is authorization information rather than usage context.

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