List files on a TwinCAT target IPC by matching a Win32 path pattern, such as C:\TwinCAT\3.1\Boot*. Use it to inspect directories and verify files on the target.
List files on the target matching a Win32 pattern, e.g. 'C:\TwinCAT\3.1\Boot*'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | ||
| max_entries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that listing happens 'on the target' (a remote machine) and that patterns are Win32-style, but it says nothing about truncation, ordering, or the max_entries cap.
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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and a concrete example appended; nothing is wasted, though it could also cover max_entries in the same space.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. However, the undocumented max_entries parameter and the absence of any usage/prerequisite context leave real gaps for a remote-filesystem tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify the required 'pattern' parameter with a concrete Win32 example, but the 'max_entries' parameter and its default of 500 are left entirely unexplained in both description and schema.
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?
States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'files on the target', plus the pattern-matching semantics. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like ipc_read_file or ipc_delete_file, but the operation is unmistakably a directory listing.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or preconditions (e.g. an established IPC connection). Usage is only inferable from the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.