open-mcp-apps

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List app files

file_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List files an app has stored, returning paged path, size, MIME, and version details with usage totals. Use limit, cursor, and prefix to page and narrow results.

Instructions

List the files an app (app) has stored — a PAGE of {path, size, mime, version} plus usage totals; limit/cursor page through, prefix narrows. These are opaque user files (attachments, exports) the app keeps — separate from its structured data collection. Renders no UI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	Yes	the app whose files to list
`limit`	No	page size (default 200)
`cursor`	No	opaque cursor from the previous page's next_cursor
`prefix`	No	only paths starting with this prefix

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	Yes
`eot`	No
`note`	No
`files`	Yes
`total`	No
`usage`	Yes
`returned`	No
`next_cursor`	No
`files_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0Sep 5, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv0.5.7Aug 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are paginated ('a PAGE of...'), outputs include usage totals, files are opaque, and it 'renders no UI.' That is value beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about limits or failures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then progressively adds scope, page shape, and the data_list distinction — each clause earns its place. Some density (the parenthetical '(app)', the stacked clauses) leaves minor room for tightening, so not a full 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain returns, yet it still outlines the page contents; annotations cover safety and idempotency; all four parameters are covered at 100% schema coverage plus description-level paging semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds how the parameters interact: 'limit/cursor page through, prefix narrows.' This explains the paging contract and prefix filtering behavior beyond the per-parameter schema text, lifting it above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the files an app has stored') and even sketches the returned page shape. It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling data_list by calling out that these are user files 'separate from its structured data collection.' An agent can tell it apart from data_list and file_read without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when this is the right tool: enumerating opaque user files (attachments, exports) rather than structured data, with paging via limit/cursor and narrowing via prefix. What is missing is an explicit contrast with file_read or data_list by name, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.