Box MCP Server

box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool

Ask one question about multiple files and get AI-generated answers for each file.

Instructions

Ask a question about multiple files using AI. Args: ctx (Context): The context object containing the request and lifespan context. file_ids (List[str]): A list of file IDs to ask about, example: ["1234567890", "0987654321"]. prompt (str): The question to ask. ai_agent_id (Optional[str]): The ID of the AI agent to use for the question. If None, the default AI agent will be used. Returns: dict: The AI response containing the answers to the questions for each file.

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": {
      "file_ids": "<file_ids>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes
`file_ids`	Yes
`ai_agent_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions AI processing and returns a dict with answers per file, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or how the AI processes multiple files (e.g., sequentially or in parallel).

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's relatively concise, but the Args section could be more streamlined (e.g., merging example into the parameter description). No wasted sentences, but minor verbosity in formatting.

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 3-parameter AI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (costs, limits, auth), output structure details beyond 'dict', and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for all three parameters: file_ids as a list of IDs with an example, prompt as the question, and ai_agent_id as optional with default behavior. However, it lacks details on ID formats, prompt constraints, or agent ID sourcing, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about multiple files using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('multiple files'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' beyond the 'multiple' vs implied 'single' distinction.

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 the sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' or other AI tools like 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server