Retrieve file or directory details including type, size, timestamps, and permissions. Use this tool to inspect filesystem metadata before performing operations.
Gets information about a file or directory, including its file type, size, creation time, modification time, access time, and permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The path of the file or directory to get information about. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 explicitly says 'Gets information' which implies a read-only operation, and it lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., if the path does not exist), whether it follows symbolic links, or any permission requirements. It adds useful return-value context but stops short of deeper behavioral transparency.
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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Gets information about a file or directory'), followed by a specific list of returned attributes. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 description is sufficiently complete for a one-parameter tool with no output schema. It enumerates the key data an agent would expect from a stat operation. It does not cover error cases or symlink behavior, but for a standard metadata retrieval tool, the provided list of return fields is adequate for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gaps exist, but they do not undermine usability.
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?
The input schema fully documents the sole parameter 'path' with a clear description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the load; the description does not need to compensate.
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 clearly states it gets information about a file or directory and enumerates specific attributes (file type, size, times, permissions). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like read (content), write, edit, and remove. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from the rest.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states its function without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The distinction from siblings is implied by its name and purpose, but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.