List a directory of a repository connected to a project. Only repositories whose owners opened them to agents can be read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory inside the repository. Omit for its root. | |
| repo | No | Which repository, as 'group/repo'. Its last segment alone is enough when unambiguous; omit it when only one is open. | |
| reference | No | Branch, tag or commit. Omit for the default branch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important permission limitation ('Only repositories whose owners opened them to agents can be read') and implies a read-only operation. However, it omits output format, whether listings are recursive, and behavior on inaccessible or invalid paths.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the important ownership caveat is included without redundancy.
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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, the description is workable, but there is no output schema and no mention of what a successful call returns. It also lacks sibling routing guidance, leaving an agent to infer the output and alternative tools.
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%, with all three parameters documented including defaults and usage notes, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'connected to a project' scope and ownership constraint, not additional parameter-level meaning.
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 action ('List a directory') and a clear resource ('a repository connected to a project'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like read_code or search_code, so it misses the top score.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over read_code or search_code, nor are exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The ownership caveat is a useful precondition, but it does not help an agent decide between sibling tools.
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.
