Skip to main content
Glama

Box

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Box Search

box_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search a user's Box (cloud storage) account for files and folders matching a query string across names and content. Optionally restrict to only files or only folders. Returns matching items with id, type, name, size, and last-modified time. Use to find documents by keyword.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional filter: restrict results to "file" or "folder".
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default 30, max 200).
queryYesFree-text search query matched against Box file and folder names and content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "quarterly report"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "query": "budget",
+    "type": "file"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by disclosing that it searches both names and content, and by specifying the return fields (id, type, name, size, and last-modified time), which annotations do not cover. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, optional filter, return fields, and usage. No redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It also mentions the optional type filter and the search scope (names and content), which together provide a complete picture for a search tool. The default limit is in the schema, so it doesn't need to be repeated.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds little beyond restating the type filter ('Optionally restrict to only files or only folders') and does not provide additional semantics for query or limit beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search a user's Box (cloud storage) account for files and folders matching a query string across names and content.' It uses a specific verb (search), specifies the resource (Box account), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_list_folder and box_get_file by emphasizing keyword search across names and content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context with 'Use to find documents by keyword,' which implies the intended scenario for this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, falling short of a 5.

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

All Box toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, aided by detailed descriptions (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, some overlap exists among Pipeworx-based tools (compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) that could cause confusion without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used, but naming patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others with nouns or prefixes (box_get_file, entity_profile). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

At 31 tools, the server covers an unusually broad set of domains (cloud storage, data queries, betting, memory, subscriptions). This is on the heavy side and could benefit from splitting into more focused servers.

Completeness3/5

Gaps exist: Box storage lacks create/update/delete, Polymarket tools offer analysis but no execution, and some data domains (e.g., weather) have only indirect coverage. The surface feels uneven across the wide scope.

Resources