List directory trees with controlled recursion depth and entry limits to inspect local files without unbounded output.
List a directory tree with bounded recursion and result count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| maxEntries | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that recursion and result count are bounded, but it never says what happens at the bound (silent truncation, partial results, or error) or whether results are ordered.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and resource come first and the two bounding constraints follow compactly.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks the return shape, entry ordering, and truncation semantics — though the annotations and the "bounded" phrasing cover just enough that the tool is callable. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 parameter burden and largely does not: it alludes to recursion depth and entry caps conceptually but never names `depth` or `maxEntries`, their defaults (2 and 1000), or their limits. The only remaining signal comes from the schema's own min/max/default constraints, not from the description.
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?
Specific verb ("List") plus resource ("directory tree") makes the operation unmistakable and separable from fs_read/fs_write/fs_manage siblings that operate on file contents rather than enumerating entries. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the boundary between listing and reading.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (permissions, path must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as fs_manage for higher-level operations. The mention of "bounded recursion" hints at limits but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.