coda_get_folderGet metadata for a single Coda folder: name, ID, parent, and child items. Use after listing folders to inspect details.
Get metadata for a single folder.
Returns the folder's name, ID, parent folder, and child items. Use coda_list_folders to discover available folders first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | Yes | The folder ID to get details for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.4.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the return fields (name, ID, parent folder, child items), which is important since there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior or permission requirements, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.
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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values and a routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 single-resource getter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, and how to discover folder IDs. No output schema is present, and the description adequately covers the return shape.
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 single parameter (folder_id) is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get metadata for a single folder'), and the phrase 'single folder' distinguishes it from the sibling coda_list_folders. An agent can immediately tell it apart from list/update/delete/create folder tools.
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?
Explicitly directs the agent to use coda_list_folders first to discover available folders, which is useful prerequisite context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other sibling getters, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.