Retrieve details for a single Zoho Mail folder using its folder ID to view folder metadata and settings.
Get details of a single folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folderId | Yes | Folder ID (from zoho_list_folders). Pass as a string — Zoho IDs are 64-bit and lose precision as JSON numbers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what "details" are returned, how missing/permission-denied folders behave, or that this is a non-mutating lookup.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves vague what "details" actually comprises, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 100% and the folderId entry already documents the pattern and the 64-bit string caveat plus its source (zoho_list_folders). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb and resource ("Get details of a single folder"), and the word "single" hints at the single-vs-list distinction. However, it never names zoho_list_folders, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus zoho_list_folders or the other retrieval tools, and no stated prerequisites. The only routing signal is the ambiguous word "single".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.