Signavio MCP Server

signavio_move_folder

Move a folder to a new parent directory or to trash in SAP Signavio Process Manager to reorganize process content.

Instructions

Move a folder to a new parent or to trash

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": {
      "folderId": "<folderId>",
      "parentId": "<parentId>"
    },
    "name": "signavio_move_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folderId`	Yes	The folder ID to move
`parentId`	Yes	New parent folder ID in format /directory/{id}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions moving to 'trash' but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled (e.g., invalid IDs). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits like side effects or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('move a folder') and specifies destinations ('new parent or to trash'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what 'trash' entails, and doesn't explain return values. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'parentId' can be set to trash, but this is not detailed. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('move') and resource ('folder'), specifying the action of relocating a folder to a new parent or to trash. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'signavio_create_folder' or 'signavio_delete_folder' by focusing on relocation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'signavio_move_model' which handles a similar action for models.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent parent), or compare to siblings like 'signavio_update_folder' for other modifications. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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