List allowed files and folders in a workspace directory, using cursor-based pagination to fetch up to 200 entries for browsing accessible local content.
List 1-200 permitted entries at a workspace-relative directory. Follow next_cursor; changed content invalidates pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| workspace | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2-demo.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces safety by noting only 'permitted entries' are shown. It adds valuable non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: the 1-200 entry limit and, crucially, that changed content invalidates pagination, warning agents not to reuse stale cursors.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core scoping constraint is front-loaded, and the pagination warning is compressed into a single clear clause.
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, the description covers the core invocation contract: scope, size limit, pagination, and cursor freshness. It does not enumerate the returned entry fields or error cases, but this is a minor gap for a list operation with a conventional response shape.
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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains workspace and path via 'workspace-relative directory', limit via '1-200', and cursor via 'Follow next_cursor', but it leaves the cursor format, exact limit semantics, and returned entry fields to inference.
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 opens with 'List 1-200 permitted entries at a workspace-relative directory', naming the exact verb, resource, and operational constraint. This clearly distinguishes list_directory from siblings like search_files and read_file, which perform different operations.
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 provides clear context: this tool is for enumerating directory entries within a workspace, not for searching content or manipulating files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names and phrasing make the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.