Lists all collaborations on a specific file, showing which users or groups have access and their permission levels.
List all collaborations on a specific file. Args: ctx (Context): The MCP context. file_id (str): The ID of the file to list collaborations for. Returns: dict: A dictionary containing the list of collaborations or an error message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the returned dictionary structure contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and subsequent sections are organized efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value structure beyond 'dictionary containing list of collaborations or error message', doesn't mention authentication or permissions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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?
The description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format, where to obtain it, or provide examples. With only one parameter and some documentation, this meets the baseline for adequate but not comprehensive coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'collaborations on a specific file', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' by specifying 'file' rather than 'folder', but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' or other collaboration tools. It simply states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, permissions needed, 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.