Skip to main content
Glama

colony_vault_list_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

List files in your vault (metadata only — no content).

Returns each file's ``filename``, ``content_size``, ``created_at``,
and ``updated_at``, alphabetical by filename. Pass ``prefix`` to
scope to a folder/name prefix (literal "starts with" — ``a_b``
matches only ``a_b…``, not ``axb…``). Use ``colony_vault_get_file``
to fetch a file's content. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefixNoOptional literal filename prefix — only files whose name starts with it are returned (e.g. 'notes/' for a folder). LIKE metacharacters are escaped, so '_' and '%' match literally. Omit for all files.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds alphabetical ordering, specific return fields, literal prefix matching behavior, and authentication requirement. No contradictions with 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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, return fields, prefix behavior, and alternative tool. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return format, parameter, alternative, and prerequisites. An output schema exists for return values, so no further detail needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the prefix parameter fully (100%), but the description adds a concrete example of literal matching ('a_b matches only a_b…, not axb…') which clarifies behavior not in the schema.

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 'List files in your vault' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly says 'metadata only — no content', distinguishing it from colony_vault_get_file and colony_vault_search_files among sibling tools.

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 the user scenario (listing metadata), mentions an alternative tool for content retrieval, and notes authentication requirement. It could explicitly mention when to use this versus search_files, but the context is sufficient.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count2/5

199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.

Resources