Box MCP Server

box_file_unlock_tool

Remove a lock from a file in Box, allowing users to edit or delete the file.

Instructions

Remove a lock from a file in Box. Args: file_id (str): The ID of the file to unlock. Returns: dict[str, Any]: Dictionary containing the unlocked file information.

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_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "box_file_unlock_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is to 'remove a lock' (implying a mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. While efficient, the Args and Returns formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter, but overall it's well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on permissions, errors, and usage context, which are important for completeness.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what a valid file ID looks like or where to find it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Remove a lock') and resource ('from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' beyond the obvious inverse relationship, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the file must be locked first), error conditions, or related tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' for context.

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

Deploy Server