files_listList a directory inside the deployment volume.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "files_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral context is that the listing is confined to the deployment volume, which is genuinely useful scope information. It says nothing about recursion depth, ordering, hidden entries, or what happens when the path does not exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than demonstrating deliberate structure.
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?
With no output schema, the description should convey what a listing returns (entry names, types, metadata), and it does not. Combined with undocumented parameters and an unexplained 'id', an agent cannot confidently call this tool without guessing.
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 0% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It never explains what 'id' identifies (project, deployment, or volume) despite being required, nor whether 'path' is relative to the volume root, absolute, or optional with a default.
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 (a directory) and adds a scope qualifier ('inside the deployment volume'), so an agent knows this enumerates entries rather than reading file contents. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as files_tree, files_search, or files_outline, which likely also enumerate files in different ways.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like files_tree for recursive listing or files_search for matching by name. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.
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.