enhanced-filesystem-mcp

by AesirKode

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.13.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but efs_batch duplicates operations in efs_read/write/edit/delete/move/list, creating ambiguity about when to use batch versus individual tools. JSON and YAML tools overlap on JSON handling, and efs_exec/process_tool have unclear boundaries for shell versus process management.
Naming Consistency2/5
The efs_ prefix is used for filesystem operations but also for git, exec, and python tools, making the prefix meaningless. Other tools use a '_tool' suffix with varied noun names, mixing snake_case conventions and creating two completely different naming patterns.
Tool Count2/5
26 tools is excessive for a filesystem-focused server, especially since many tools (ollama, http, windows automation, ssh) are unrelated to files. The broad scope makes the set feel like a grab-bag rather than a cohesive toolset.
Completeness3/5
Core filesystem operations like read, write, edit, delete, move, list, and search are covered, but there is no copy tool, no chmod or symlink support, and efs_git includes only a subset of git commands. The non-filesystem tools feel bolted on and do not fill these primary domain gaps.
Average 3.8/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 adds useful context such as dot-notation queries and auto-detection of format from extension, but it fails to disclose side effects for mutating operations like set/delete/merge, whether changes persist to files, return value shape, or error behavior. This is a notable transparency gap for a tool with write-capable operations.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, using three short sentences to communicate the tool's domain, operations, and a key behavior. Some redundancy exists because the operation list mirrors the schema enum, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—13 parameters, 9 operations, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is too high-level. It does not explain output formatting, file-writing side effects, or operation-specific parameter relationships such as mergeWith vs. mergeWithFile, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the input schema. The description does not meaningfully add parameter semantics beyond repeating dot-notation queries and format auto-detection, which are already present in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as performing YAML/TOML/JSON config file operations and lists supported operations such as get, set, delete, validate, convert, merge, diff, keys, and format. It is specific about the resource domain and operation types, though it lacks a single strong verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like json_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'config file operations' and the supported formats, giving a general sense of when to invoke it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer yaml_tool over alternatives such as json_tool or efs_edit, and no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions Explorer-specific file path handling but does not disclose side effects (e.g., clearing the clipboard), permissions, or what operations return. The description leaves out whether 'read' vs 'paste' have different behavioral implications.
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?
The description is a single sentence listing all operations without filler. It is efficient and front-loads the main purpose. Slightly dense but every phrase carries meaning; no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return values, side effects, or distinct behavior of each operation. Ambiguity between 'read' and 'paste' and lack of detail on file path formatting (beyond Explorer) leaves gaps for correct invocation. The description is a summary, not a complete usage guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'for Explorer' hints at the files parameter's purpose) but does not go beyond what the schema already provides for the 'text' and 'files' parameters. The operation enum is well-described in the schema, so the description adds limited new meaning.
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 clearly states 'System clipboard operations' and enumerates specific capabilities: copy text, read/paste content, check type, clear, and handle file paths. It is unambiguous about the tool's resource (system clipboard) and distinguishes it from sibling file/process tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: if clipboard access is needed, this is the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with clipboard functionality. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations like 'close', 'minimize', and 'launch' but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or whether actions are reversible. It also omits critical context like what happens with screenshots (e.g., requires outputPath) or whether mouse/keyboard actions may disrupt the user's session. The catalog-style listing gives limited transparency beyond the operation names themselves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact and well-organized, using category groupings (Keyboard, Mouse, Windows, Other) to present a large number of operations in a scannable format. Every sentence and fragment contributes meaning without fluff, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (18 operations, 20 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides a solid overview but leaves gaps. The 'cursor' operation is absent from the description despite being in the enum, and return values for operations like window_info or screenshot are not described. The schema covers parameter details, but an agent would struggle to know the exact expected inputs or outputs for several operations without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a description, so the schema carries the main semantic burden. The description adds a few inline details (e.g., modifiers, hotkey example, mouse buttons) but largely repeats what the schema already provides, so it provides marginal added value.
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 opens with 'Windows UI automation', clearly stating the tool's domain and purpose. It enumerates specific operations (keyboard, mouse, windows, other) that distinguish it from sibling tools like process_tool or clipboard_tool, making it immediately clear what this tool is for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply lists operations without context on when each should be chosen over another tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions returning stdout/stderr but does not disclose important traits such as error handling (e.g., behavior on non-zero exit codes), environment context, security restrictions, or side effects. For a shell execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence states the core action and output, followed by a brief parameter summary. Every word earns its place, and the crucial verb is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a shell execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return structure (e.g., whether stdout/stderr are separate fields), exit code behavior, or whether the command runs in a specific shell. The tool's complexity demands more context than just 'return stdout/stderr'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described in the schema (command, cwd, timeout). The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating the parameter names and notes like 'default 30000', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the burden.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a shell command and return stdout/stderr.' This uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (shell command), distinguishing it from sibling tools like efs_read and efs_write. The parameter list further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (e.g., you need to run a shell command), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like efs_python or process_tool. There are no exclusions or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists mutating operations like add, commit, branch, and stash, but gives no warning about side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on the repository. This is a significant gap for a tool that can modify state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with a clear front-loaded subject and an enumerated list of operations. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool supports eight different operations with multiple parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level list. It lacks operation-specific detail, examples, output expectations, or guidance on parameter combinations, leaving a substantial usability gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, except for emphasizing that repoPath is required, which is already in the schema as a required field.
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 explicitly lists the git operations (status, diff, log, blame, add, commit, branch, stash) and states the required resource (repoPath). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling efs_* tools that handle file operations rather than git commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for git operations and notes that repoPath is required, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions persistent sessions and the set of operations, but does not disclose side effects of commands, output format, or authentication/security implications beyond listing credential parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and lists operations without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 operations, persistent sessions, 11 parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits return values, session lifecycle, error behavior, and prerequisites for each operation, leaving substantial gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (18%), so the description compensates by mapping operations to parameter sets: connect uses host/username/password or privateKeyPath, exec uses command, upload/download use local/remote paths, list uses remotePath. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on optional parameters like passphrase and port.
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?
Clearly states it is an SSH client with persistent sessions and enumerates six operations (connect, exec, upload/download, list, disconnect), making it distinct from other tools like efs_exec or process_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage via operation list (e.g., exec for remote commands, upload/download for SFTP), but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Does mention sessionId requirement, hinting at session-based workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations like create/extract/add that mutate the filesystem, but does not mention potential overwrites, permissions required, or what happens to existing files. The presence of an 'overwrite' parameter with a default true is not disclosed, which is a significant gap for a tool that can modify or destroy files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Zip archive operations') and then lists the operations. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides an adequate high-level summary for a moderately complex tool, but without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps. It does not explain the behavior of list (return value format), the default for overwrite, or how the multiple parameters interrelate for each operation. The schema fills some gaps, but a slightly more explanatory description would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some relational context (e.g., 'create from files/dirs', 'extract to directory', 'add files to existing archive') but largely paraphrases the schema descriptions without introducing new meaning or clarifying parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a tool for zip archive operations and enumerates the supported actions (list, create, extract, add). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Zip archive operations' at the outset, though it lists operations rather than a single verb.
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?
The description opens with 'Zip archive operations', which clearly signals when an agent should use this tool—when working with zip archives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would correctly select it for archive tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses session persistence as a key behavior, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not warn about arbitrary code execution risks, side effects, or return format, leaving significant transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and lists parameters efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function and session feature but omits output format, error handling, and safety considerations. For a code execution tool with five parameters and no output schema, these gaps are noticeable but not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely lists parameter names, which is redundant with the schema. The session concept is briefly introduced but adds little to the schema's existing description of 'persistent state'.
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 clearly states the tool executes Python code with a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling file tools by mentioning persistent named sessions, which is a unique capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like efs_exec or process_tool. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists operations and algorithms but fails to disclose important behaviors such as whether files are read from disk, what output format is returned (e.g., hex digest, exit codes, human-readable result), error handling for missing files, or whether the tool has any side effects. For a tool with multiple operations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. It efficiently lists operations and algorithms without unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters and multiple operation modes, but the description does not explain how parameters map to operations, nor does it describe expected outputs or return formats. The rich schema compensates for parameter clarity, but the lack of an output schema and the absence of operation-specific guidance leave the description only partially complete for an agent to invoke it correctly across all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level grouping of operations and algorithms but does not clarify conditional parameter relationships (e.g., which parameters are required for the 'verify' operation versus 'compare'). It reinforces enum values already present in the schema without adding new semantic depth.
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 clearly states 'File hashing and verification' and enumerates specific operations (hash, verify, compare, multiple, string) and algorithms (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are hashing-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use cases (hashing files, verifying against expected, comparing two files, batch, and string hashing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling list contains no similar tools, the context is clear, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It lists operations but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether set/delete/merge modify files in place), return values, or error handling. The mention of 'deep/shallow/replace' for merge hints at behavior but is insufficient for a tool that likely performs mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a compact list of operations, making it highly scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters relate to each operation (e.g., diff requires compareTo, merge uses mergeWith/mergeWithFile, transform uses transforms), nor does it describe return values or expected file behavior. Valuable operational context 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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context by giving JSONPath syntax examples ($.key, $..key, $.arr[*]) and explicitly noting merge strategies (deep/shallow/replace), which helps clarify the 'strategy' parameter and the nature of operations beyond the schema's terse descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool performs 'Deep JSON operations' and lists specific operations (get, set, delete, merge, diff, flatten, unflatten, validate). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from generic siblings like process_tool or yaml_tool, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies JSON manipulation as the core use case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., yaml_tool for YAML, diff_tool for diffing). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is limited to implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions request features such as auth, retry, timeout, and download, but these are also documented in the schema. It does not disclose behavioral aspects like response format, side effects of mutating methods, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that can modify remote resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists capabilities in a compact list. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description gives a good overview but omits response structure and error behavior. It is adequate for a generic HTTP client but not fully complete without output schema details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates key feature groupings (JSON body, auth types, retry, download) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states it is an 'HTTP client' and enumerates all supported methods (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/PATCH/HEAD), making the tool's action and resource unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_tool or efs_* which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (whenever an HTTP request is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that download_tool might be preferred for simple file downloads. Clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool reads only structure ('without reading the full file') and explains the two operations. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid paths), permissions, or whether operations are strictly read-only, leaving gaps for an agent to anticipate behavior.
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?
The description is well-organized with a short intro, operation list, and examples. The sentence 'Useful for understanding codebases quickly' is somewhat promotional but not harmful. It is longer than necessary but each section earns its place by clarifying usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what actions are available and how to invoke them. However, it does not describe the shape of the results (e.g., what the summary looks like, how imports are listed) or edge cases, so an agent may be uncertain about response format.
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%, but the description adds value by explaining what each operation does ('summarize: Get high-level structure', 'imports: List all imports') and by showing realistic examples of how operation and path combine. This goes beyond the bare schema enum and property names.
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 clearly states the tool analyzes TypeScript/JavaScript files by extracting structure (classes, functions, imports) without reading the full file. It lists concrete operations ('summarize', 'imports') and provides examples, distinguishing it from the file I/O siblings (efs_read, efs_list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says the tool is 'useful for understanding codebases quickly' and implies it is lighter than reading full files, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives like efs_read or efs_search. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits (depth control, glob pattern filter, sorting) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. It also omits details about return format or error behavior, which could impact an agent's expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters) and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the core functionality and key options. It omits details like output structure and error conditions, but for a listing tool it is largely complete. Slightly more information on the return value would make it fully comprehensive.
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. The description adds semantic value by clarifying 'depth control' (recursion) and 'glob pattern filter' (pattern syntax), which are not fully explained in the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding slightly beyond the structured fields.
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 clearly states 'List directory contents' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions key capabilities (depth control, glob filter, sorting) that distinguish it from sibling tools like efs_read or efs_search. This provides immediate clarity on the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference other tools or specify conditions where efs_list would be preferred over efs_search or efs_info. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It lists operations and mentions optional host/timeout overrides, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., delete irreversibility, network usage for pull, compute cost for generate/chat) or return value shapes. The parentheticals give minimal transparency, but significant behavioral detail is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists all operations and config options. Every phrase carries meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex multi-operation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description enumerates operations but fails to explain operation-specific required parameters (e.g., chat needs messages, generate needs prompt, copy needs source/destination) or what return values the agent should expect. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping operations to relevant parameters (e.g., create from Modelfile, generate single prompt, chat multi-turn), which helps the agent understand which parameters apply to which operations. However, it does not fully specify required parameters per operation.
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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Ollama LLM integration' and enumerates all supported operations with brief parenthetical explanations. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are unrelated file, process, and HTTP utilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The operation list implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no discussion of prerequisites. The context is clear (use for Ollama operations) but lacks 'when-not' or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Get' to signal a read-only operation and lists the precise return fields (size, type, line count, timestamps), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or how errors like a missing path are handled, leaving a small gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists specific metadata fields. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the metadata fields returned, which serves as a de facto output specification. It is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, though it could clarify the format or units of the returned values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'path' parameter as 'File path', and description coverage is 100%. The description adds a small clarification by saying 'file/directory', indicating the path can point to either, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond that.
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 clearly states 'Get file/directory metadata' with a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates the exact metadata fields (size, type, line count, created/modified timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_read (file content) and efs_list (directory entries).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for metadata retrieval but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. It lacks exclusions such as 'do not use this for file content' or 'use efs_read instead when you need the contents', so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an automatic backup behavior, a meaningful side effect not present in the schema. With no annotations, this adds useful transparency, though it does not cover overwrite behavior or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the operation and scope. There is no fluff; every phrase adds value: action, resource, scope, and backup side effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple move operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key backup side effect. Missing details like overwrite semantics or return values are not critical for basic use, so it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Source path', 'Destination path'). The tool description adds context that it works across directories, enriching parameter meaning, but not significantly beyond the high schema coverage baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action (move or rename) and resource (file or directory), with scope ('Works across directories'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_delete, and efs_read, meeting the 5-level criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The description implies use for moving/renaming but does not state when to prefer it over other efs operations. The context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses automatic cache invalidation, mode behavior (rewrite/append), and the lack of chunking requirements. This is useful but does not cover all potential side effects like overwriting behavior or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words, effectively communicates essential attributes and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (size, modes, cache) and is sufficient for a simple write operation. No output schema is present, but return values are not critical here. Slight gap in not mentioning file creation/overwrite assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, only mentioning mode defaults and cache invalidation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states 'Write file' with specific capabilities (any size, no chunking) and distinguishes from siblings like efs_edit by focusing on write operations. Mode options further refine the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for writing files and notes 'no chunking required' which suggests suitability for large files, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to efs_edit or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals destructive operations (kill), start capability, and GPU monitoring, but omits details about side effects (e.g., force/graceful), return values, or whether monitor/wait are long-running. This is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with a clear purpose. The second sentence compactly lists operations and services with ports, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers main operations and services but fails to explain additional parameters (cwd, env, timeout, waitForPort, force, graceful) and does not describe expected outputs or behavior of monitor/wait. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, but the description enriches parameter understanding by linking operations to relevant parameters: list uses filter by name/port, start uses service or command, kill uses PID/name/port. This goes beyond the generic schema property descriptions.
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 clearly defines a 'Process and service manager with GPU monitoring' and lists all operations (list, gpu, start, kill, status, restart, monitor, wait), distinguishing it from sibling file or HTTP tools. Specific predefined services with port numbers add concrete scope.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool by enumerating operations and service names, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It provides enough context for an agent to decide but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses operation types and unified diff format, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or describe return structure/edge cases. It adds some behavioral context but lacks full disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerating operations without fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has multiple parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to convey behavior well. It covers the main operations and output format hint, but does not detail return values or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, it is reasonably complete, though a note on return format would make it fully complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each operation enum value means (e.g., 'files' means line-by-line diff, 'quick' means fast identical check) and that 'unified' outputs unified diff format. This enriches the schema descriptions beyond simple labels.
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 clearly states the tool compares files and directories, then enumerates specific operations (files, dirs, stat, quick) with brief explanations. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like efs_edit or efs_list, which perform different functions.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (whenever you need to compare files/directories) and lists sub-operations that guide selection. While it does not name alternative tools, the operations are self-explanatory enough to imply usage, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: resume support, progress tracking, SHA256 verification, auto-placement, and auto-detection of model type. It also clarifies that 'info' previews without downloading. However, it omits details about authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens on unexpected failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Smart model downloads') and then enumerating sources and operations. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, an operation enum, and no output schema. The description covers the operations and sources adequately for an agent to select and invoke it. However, it does not describe return values or error structures, which would be important for a tool with no output schema, but the core selection and invocation context is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context (e.g., 'auto-detects type' explains destination defaulting, and operations are described in the schema). It does not provide syntax details beyond the schema but is consistent with it.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Smart model downloads' with specific sources (CivitAI, HuggingFace, direct URLs) and operations (download, info, list-paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_* (file system) and http_tool (generic HTTP) by focusing on model downloads.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool by listing supported sources and operations, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. For example, it doesn't clarify whether http_tool should be used for non-model downloads, but the context is sufficiently clear for model-related use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: creates an automatic backup, dryRun previews without writing, and oldText must be unique. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits details like error handling or backup location.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—three short sentences packed with useful specifics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds new value without repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most essential operational details: purpose, uniqueness, count behavior, dryRun, and backup. It does not mention the range parameter (which is odd for a file editor) or explain return values, but for most use cases it is adequately complete.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it specifies the default value for count (1) and explains the dryRun behavior, plus the uniqueness constraint on oldText. Some parameter details are redundant (e.g., dryRun), but the added info elevates 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 clearly states 'Surgical find/replace in a file', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes this tool from siblings like efs_write (whole-file write) and efs_search (search only). It also adds key constraints (oldText unique) that further clarify its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical usage instructions (count default and -1, dryRun preview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly compared with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without loading into memory', which indicates a non-destructive, memory-efficient operation. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as output format, error handling, or whether the tool requires special permissions, leaving some uncertainty for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence followed by a concise list of operations. It front-loads the main purpose and gives operation details without wordiness. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid high-level overview of all operations and their intents. While it omits details like defaults (recursive) or the shape of returned data, the schema covers parameter semantics, and the description effectively ties operations to their purposes, making it adequate for a multi-operation tool with a rich schema.
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 value beyond the schema by explaining the operation enum and mapping operations to their parameter needs (e.g., 'compare' uses path1/path2, 'search' uses query, 'list' uses path). This operational context helps the agent select and combine parameters correctly, exceeding the schema's individual field descriptions.
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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Inspect AI model files (Safetensors/GGUF)', clearly distinguishing this from sibling file tools (efs_*, etc.) by focusing exclusively on model file types. It further enumerates four concrete operations (info, list, compare, search), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and non-overlapping with siblings.
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?
The description provides clear context: use this when you need to inspect or gather metadata about AI model files without loading them into memory, and it lists the operations available. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., efs_read for general file reading), so it falls short of a 5 for explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly reveals caching, pagination, size/format support, and special handling for Excel and PDF. This goes beyond a simple 'read file' statement, but it omits details like return format or caching invalidation, which prevents a top score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose ('Read file with caching and pagination.') and then adding supporting details about size, format, and special cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers high-level behavior and format handling, but since there is no output schema, it should explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, binary buffer, or markdown for PDF). It also leaves caching semantics vague. These are notable gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and no structured output.
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?
The input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, providing a 100% coverage baseline. The description adds meaningful context by linking offset/length to pagination and mentioning sheet/range for Excel, which helps the agent understand how these parameters are intended to be used together.
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 opens with 'Read file', a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the operation. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_edit, and efs_delete by focusing on reading, while also adding useful capabilities like caching, pagination, and format-specific handling for Excel and PDF.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: for reading files of any size, with text/binary support, and offset/length for pagination. It also identifies Excel and PDF special cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses useful behaviors: parallelism, indexing, streaming results, regex/literal matching, and fuzzy search. It also notes performance characteristics. It doesn't mention side effects like index persistence, but for a search tool this is reasonable transparency. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).
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?
The description is well-structured with sections for features, search types, parameters, and examples. It is longer than strictly necessary, but the structure helps scanning. The '20x faster on your i7-14700K' is a marketing flourish that doesn't add functional value, but the overall organization earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description doesn't detail the result format, but it mentions 'streaming results' and uses examples that imply output is a list of matches. For a 7-parameter tool with examples and parameter explanations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly. Missing return structure is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining searchType semantics ('smart': auto-detect), regex/literal matching, and providing examples for parameter combinations. It goes beyond simple schema labels by clarifying the 'smart' mode and filePattern usage.
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 opens with 'Fast parallel search with indexing' and elaborates with search types ('files', 'content', 'smart'), clearly identifying it as a search tool distinct from siblings like efs_list or efs_info. It gives specific examples with parameters, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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?
The search types section strongly implies when to use each mode ('files' for filename, 'content' for inside files, 'smart' for auto-detect). It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like efs_list or efs_read, nor state 'use this instead of X'. No exclusions are mentioned, but the intent is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses atomic rollback, automatic backups, parallel execution, and transaction support—valuable behavioral details beyond the schema. Still, it does not explain backup lifecycle or exact error/rollback semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Features, Operations, Parameters, Operation format, Examples) and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is somewhat verbose, repeating atomic/parallel concepts, but every section contributes to usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex batching tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, operation types, atomic/parallel options, and provides examples. The main gap is that it does not describe the return value or result format, which would be especially important for read operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though the schema describes top-level parameters, the description adds crucial meaning through the operation format and examples. It clarifies how source/destination, content, oldText/newText, and path relate to each operation type, which is essential for correct invocation.
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 opens with 'Execute multiple file operations atomically,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and key scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like efs_write/efs_edit by emphasizing multi-operation batching and atomicity.
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?
The description gives clear context through features and examples, implying use for multi-file operations and atomic refactoring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with single-operation sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 adds valuable context by noting that recursive must be set for directories and that an automatic backup is created before deletion, which mitigates the danger of a destructive operation. It does not specify backup storage location or recovery procedures, but the essential safety behavior is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, includes a direct parameter instruction, and a safety note—all in under 15 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, how to handle directories, and the automatic backup safety mechanism. It does not detail error behaviors or backup location, but for a simple tool this is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('Path to delete' and 'Delete directories'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving a concrete usage hint ('Set recursive: true for directories') and clarifying the primary resource scope ('file or directory'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'Delete file or directory' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_edit, and efs_move. The mention of recursive behavior for directories further clarifies scope.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (deleting files/directories) and includes a parameter usage instruction ('Set recursive: true for directories'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![enhanced-filesystem-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AesirKode/enhanced-filesystem-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AesirKode/enhanced-filesystem-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![enhanced-filesystem-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AesirKode/enhanced-filesystem-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AesirKode/enhanced-filesystem-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AesirKode/enhanced-filesystem-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server