list_dirList directory contents inside the workspace. Use path, recursion, depth, sorting, and filters to locate files and folders.
List directory entries inside the configured workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| sort | No | name | |
| max_depth | No | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| max_entries | No | ||
| include_hidden | No | ||
| include_ignored | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace boundary ('inside the configured workspace'), which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors like symlink handling, recursion defaults, or entry filtering beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose and workspace constraint.
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?
With 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and a sibling tool named list_files that could easily be confused with this one, the description is too sparse for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in all cases. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description still leaves usage and parameter semantics under-specified.
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% and the description adds no meaning for any of the 7 parameters. The agent gets no guidance on 'path' interpretation, sorting semantics, recursion/depth limits, or hidden/ignored entry behavior from the description itself.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List directory entries inside the configured workspace.' It is not a tautology and conveys scope, but it does not differentiate from the sibling list_files or other listing tools.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or read_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues beyond the general implication that it lists directory contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.