Locate and enumerate XMind files in a directory, using the default output folder when omitted, with recursive search, filename patterns, and depth limits.
列出XMind文件。directory 为绝对目录，省略时使用默认输出目录；支持递归、文件名模式和最大搜索深度。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | ||
| directory | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| recursive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default-directory fallback and that recursion, pattern matching and a depth cap are supported, but it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor anything about result volume or pagination behavior on large trees.
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 dense sentence with the resource stated first and the parameter constraints following; every clause adds information 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the parameter behaviors are covered. What is missing is the identity of the 'default output directory' and any guidance on choosing this tool over the sibling readers/converters, leaving a modest gap for an agent with no annotations to lean on.
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 compensate and largely does: it explains directory (absolute path, default output directory when omitted), and names recursion, filename pattern and max search depth, mapping to all four parameters. It does not give pattern syntax or clarify whether max_depth applies without recursive, so it is not fully compensatory.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: listing XMind files. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_xmind_file, create_mind_map or convert_to_xmind by the fact that it only enumerates. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the tool's nature as a listing operation; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no when-not-to-use or alternative named among the five sibling tools. The note that omitting directory falls back to the default output directory gives partial context, which keeps it above a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.