lsList what is directly inside one folder: its subfolders and the apps filed in it. Omit folder_id for the top level. Each folder carries the updated_at that mv needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many rows to return. Defaults to 50. | |
| folder_id | No | The folder to look inside. Omit for the top level. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-redundant behavioral context: it clarifies the non-recursive scope ('directly inside'), names the returned item types (subfolders and apps), and reveals a useful output field ('updated_at') relevant to the sibling 'mv'. No contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and scope, the second gives usage and cross-tool context. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical behavioral detail is front-loaded.
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 simple read tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, top-level invocation, and a relevant return field. It does not enumerate the full return format, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity and the existing schema documentation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'limit' and 'folder_id' are documented with defaults and usage. The description only restates the folder_id omission guidance already in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('what is directly inside one folder'), and clarifies the content ('subfolders and the apps filed in it'). The phrase 'directly inside one folder' implicitly distinguishes it from the recursive sibling 'tree', making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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?
Provides clear usage context: how to list the top level ('Omit folder_id for the top level') and why this tool matters for a downstream workflow ('Each folder carries the updated_at that mv needs'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.
The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.
24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.