list_directoryList entries in a Filen cloud directory using an absolute path, with optional recursive listing of all files and folders below it.
List the entries of a Filen cloud directory. Paths are absolute, starting at '/'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute cloud path of the directory, e.g. '/' or '/Documents' | |
| recursive | No | If true, list all entries recursively below path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the path-scoping constraint and says nothing about result ordering, entry count limits, hidden entries, or error behavior for non-existent paths — useful context that is left out.
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 the operation stated first and the path convention second; nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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 two-parameter read tool with annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but with no output schema an agent gets no hint of the return shape (entry objects, names, types, metadata). That is the one meaningful gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so both `path` and `recursive` are fully documented in the schema. The description's note that paths are absolute and start at '/' largely restates the schema's own example, adding no new meaning — baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (entries of a Filen cloud directory), which is unambiguous against siblings like read_file or stat. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from search_files, which an agent might otherwise consider for the same goal.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over search_files, or when to set recursive=true versus a flat listing. The path convention ('absolute, starting at /') is a prerequisite, not a usage rule, and no exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.