Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PerMark

PerMark

by EdelmarSchneider
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

map

Read-only

Lists files under a folder by path with token size, flags, tags, and descriptions, while counting folders beyond the depth limit. Use it to start exploring a project structure.

Instructions

Files below a folder by path: size_tok, flags, tags, description; folders past depth counted. Start here.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoFolder, default project root.
depthNo1..6, default 2.
limitNoFiles 1..500, default 200.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: folders beyond the depth are counted rather than expanded, and it names the returned fields. It does not explain pagination behavior or what the count looks like.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the resource and returned fields. The telegraphic phrasing ('size_tok', 'folders past depth counted') is efficient but slightly cryptic.

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 three-parameter read-only mapping tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the basic result shape and depth-counting behavior. It remains thin on call semantics, pagination, and how the output is organized.

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 the schema already documents path, depth, and limit with defaults and ranges. The description adds only that traversal is below a folder and that depth affects whether folders are counted, but does not explain parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It conveys that the tool enumerates files beneath a folder and returns metadata such as size_tok, flags, tags, and description, but the verb is implicit and the name 'map' is metaphorical. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like outline or search beyond the vague 'Start here.'

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?

'Start here' gives a weak hint that this is an entry point, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus outline, search, get_context, or read. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools