Get a tree view of a project directory to understand its structure and locate files during collaborative development.
Get a tree view of the project directory structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Root path | |
| exclude | No | Patterns to exclude | |
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth (default: 3) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'tree view' and provides no details about default path behavior, handling of excluded patterns, hidden files, symlinks, or return format.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and stays appropriately minimal for a simple read-only tool.
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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the basics. However, it lacks guidance on default roots, exclusion pattern semantics, or how the tree is rendered, and it fails to mention sibling alternatives.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented with 'Root path', 'Patterns to exclude', and 'Maximum depth (default: 3)'. The description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a tree view of the project directory structure'), which clearly distinguishes it from a flat file list. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_files.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or search_files. It does not state when a tree view is preferred or when another sibling should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.