Query and paginate remote files created by the current CloudPaste API key. Search by keyword and retrieve file details without exposing passwords, keys, or sensitive fields.
分页查询当前 CloudPaste API Key 自己创建的远程文件。支持按关键词搜索；不会返回密码、密钥或其他敏感字段。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 每页数量，1 到 100，默认 30 | |
| offset | No | 分页偏移量，默认 0 | |
| search | No | 按文件名等字段搜索；未提供时列出最新文件 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 usefully states that passwords, keys, and other sensitive fields are not returned, and scope is limited to files created by the current API Key, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by search support and a security note, making it easy to scan.
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 paginated list tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, search capability, and sensitive-field exclusion. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of returned file records or pagination metadata, leaving some return-value context missing.
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%, so limit, offset, and search are already well documented in the schema. The description mentions keyword search and pagination generally but adds no syntax, constraints, or example values beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb (分页查询) and resource (远程文件) and adds an important scope: files created by the current API Key. This is clearly a listing operation rather than a single get/delete/upload, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as get_file.
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?
The description mentions that keyword search is supported, implying the tool is for browsing owned files, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as get_file for fetching a single file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.