Skip to main content
Glama

Package Files

package_files

List files installed by a named package to audit package contents, locate installed paths, or verify system changes.

Instructions

List files owned by an installed package (dpkg -L).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "package_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about what happens when the package is not installed, whether file listing can be truncated, or whether the operation requires elevated permissions. The 'dpkg -L' reference does convey the underlying mechanism, which is the one piece of genuine behavioral context present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical command hint is compact and informative. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core operation is stated. However, for a tool with a silent limit parameter and no annotations, the description is missing truncation behavior and error conditions, leaving real gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured form and the description must compensate. It only implies that 'name' is an installed package name; the 'limit' parameter (default 300) and its truncation implications are never mentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List files owned by an installed package') and anchors it to the well-known 'dpkg -L' behavior, which makes the semantics unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling package_owner, but the direction (package -> files) is clear enough for an agent to distinguish them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as package_owner for the reverse lookup or search_files for path searching. The only usage constraint is implied by the word 'installed', leaving the agent to infer routing on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools