List files and directories in a remote ROMEO HPC path, showing size and modification date. Set a path and result limit to inspect remote directories over SSH.
Contenu d'un repertoire distant (taille et date incluses).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that size and date are returned per entry, but with an output schema present that information is already structurally available, so the added value is modest. It says nothing about recursion, error behavior, or remote path conventions.
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 that front-loads the resource. No padding, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but with 0% parameter description coverage the definition leaves the agent guessing about path resolution and limit semantics on a remote filesystem — core to calling this correctly. The French-only description amid an otherwise English toolset also adds a small comprehension cost.
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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The two parameters (path with default '.', limit with default 100) are unintuitive in a remote-cluster context — relative to what root? does limit truncate or paginate? — and the description compensates for none of this.
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 resource and operation: listing a remote directory's contents. The parenthetical clarifies the listing includes size and date, which distinguishes it from read_remote_file without needing the schema. It does not, however, name a sibling or state how it differs from other remote-file tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus read_remote_file, download_from_romeo, or audit_orphan_files. No prerequisites, no path format hints, no note about what happens with a missing directory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.