ethora-files-get-v2List the authenticated user's files, or fetch one file's metadata by id (GET /v2/files). Returns an array when id is omitted, a single record when given.
Auth: user-auth mode with an active user session. Errors: 401 not logged in; 404 unknown id or not owned by the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | File id to fetch a single record. Omit to list all files owned by the logged-in user. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies the required auth mode, the 401 and 404 error conditions, and the array-vs-single-object return shape. Since readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already cover safety, this extra context is valuable and 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential operational details: return shape, auth requirement, and likely errors. No redundant phrasing or filler sentences.
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-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core semantics, auth context, error behavior, and the two possible return shapes. With annotations supplying the read-only and openness hints, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id parameter and its behavior. The description reinforces the omit-to-list vs. provide-to-get semantics, but does not add significantly new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's dual behavior: list the authenticated user's files or fetch a single file's metadata by id. It uses a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated user's files, or fetch one file's metadata by id') and is easily distinguishable from sibling file tools like upload and delete.
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 gives clear usage context by explaining when to omit vs. provide the id, which determines whether the tool lists all files or returns one record. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the optional-id behavior is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.
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.