list_foldersRetrieve Vimeo folders with a video count for each, using page, sort, and direction options to browse projects. Use it to inventory or locate video collections before bulk actions.
List your Vimeo folders with a video count for each. Folders are called projects in the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | date | |
| per_page | No | ||
| direction | No | desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds two genuine pieces of context beyond that: each item includes a video count, and 'folders' map to 'projects' in the API. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page existing.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result shape, with the terminology clarification second. Nothing wasted or repetitive.
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?
For a simple list tool this covers the essentials: what is returned (folders with video counts) and the API naming quirk. With no output schema, pagination and sort semantics go unexplained, leaving a modest gap for an agent that needs to page through results.
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 all four parameters (page, sort, per_page, direction) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about sorting options, pagination, or defaults, so an agent gets no help beyond the raw enum values.
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?
States a clear verb+resource (list folders) and adds the distinguishing detail that each result carries a video count, which separates it from sibling get_folder. It does not explicitly name neighbors like get_folder or list_videos, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., use get_folder for a single folder's details). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.