List uploaded files with optional filtering
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_files"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 50, max: 200) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor | |
| prefix | No | Filter by prefix |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'optional filtering' and leaves out pagination behavior, defaults, result ordering, or response structure, which are important for a list operation.
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 a single clear sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values and overall behavior. It only states the function, omitting pagination defaults, result fields, and operational context, making it insufficient for a complete understanding.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (limit, cursor, prefix) explicitly, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional filtering' aligns with the prefix parameter but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 action ('List') and resource ('uploaded files') with a scoping modifier ('optional filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating enumeration, unlike delete_file, get_file_info, or upload_file.
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 implies use for browsing uploaded files, which is distinct from the sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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.