Lists all files and directories in the Pumpkin Plugin API and WIT interface. Use the optional subdirectory parameter to explore specific folders.
Lists all files and directories in the Pumpkin Plugin API and WIT interface
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subdirectory | No | Optional subdirectory to list, e.g. 'src/events' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scope of what is enumerated (both the Plugin API and the WIT interface), which is real behavioral information, but says nothing about depth/recursion, ordering, or whether limits apply to the listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and the resource scope. Nothing is repeated from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits any hint of the return shape (tree, flat list, file types) that an agent would benefit from when planning a browse-then-read flow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'subdirectory' parameter is documented in the schema with an example ('src/events'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and names the resources ('files and directories in the Pumpkin Plugin API and WIT interface'), which cleanly separates it from read_api_file and search_api_code. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the verb makes the browse-vs-read distinction obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus partners like read_api_file, search_api_code, or get_module_docs. An agent can infer it is a discovery step before reading, but the description supplies no conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.