Retrieve the list of files in a project using its project ID. Optionally provide a relative path to explore a subdirectory, with verified read-only access for security.
List safe project files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relative | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description. However, the description adds only the vague qualifier 'safe' without explaining what makes a file safe (e.g., filters, size limits, binary exclusion), nor does it disclose return format or edge-case behavior.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. The single sentence omits essential context that the tool requires, so brevity is achieved at the expense of usefulness.
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 tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a meaningful qualifier like 'safe', the description is incomplete. It does not explain the filtering semantics, the purpose of the 'relative' parameter, or how the result list behaves, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
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 does not mention either parameter. The 'relative' parameter is especially opaque, and with no schema descriptions or parameter explanations, the agent cannot determine what values are valid or what behavior they control.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'project files' clearly, so an agent can tell this is a listing operation. The qualifier 'safe' is ambiguous, but the core purpose is understandable and distinct from sibling tools like read_project_file.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention read_project_file, list_projects, or any condition for choosing this tool, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.