OpenCOOP MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_files

List files and directories in a shared project to view its structure. Specify a directory path and choose recursive listing to explore subfolders.

Instructions

List files and directories in the shared project.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Directory path (default: project root)
`recursive`	No	List recursively

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.1Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the verb and resource. It does not mention default recursion behavior, hidden-file handling, output shape, or whether this is strictly a read-only operation beyond what the word 'List' implies.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the length is appropriate for a simple two-parameter listing tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with only two fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent that the tool lists files and directories in the shared project. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around recursive defaults and result format that an agent might need for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both path (with its root default) and recursive are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, keeping this at the baseline.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories') within a defined scope ('shared project'), so an agent can understand the core function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool directory_tree, which likely serves a similar listing purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like directory_tree, search_files, or grep_content. The description explains only what the tool does, not the conditions that make it the right choice among its siblings.

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