Retrieve a directory listing of files and folders on an Android device at a specified path. Provide a remote path to inspect its contents.
Fajlok/konyvtarak listazasa az eszkozon egy adott utvonalon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| remote_path | No | /sdcard |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are none, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states a listing action; it does not disclose how results are returned, whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid paths, or whether permissions are needed. No behavioral detail beyond the basic action is provided.
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 short sentence, so it is concise. However, it is one of those cases where under-specification is not true conciseness: it communicates almost nothing beyond the bare action. It is not wasted, but it is minimal.
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?
The tool is a simple listing operation with no annotations and no schema descriptions. The description is extremely thin, but the presence of an output schema and two simple parameters means the agent can infer some behavior from the schema. What is missing is guidance on serial semantics, path handling, and result interpretation.
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 there is no textual explanation of the parameters. The schema shows serial and remote_path with defaults, but the description gives no semantic guidance about what serial means or how remote_path should be formatted. The parameter list itself is short, so a 2 is appropriate rather than 1, but the description compensates very little for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 is in Hungarian and states that it lists files/directories on the device at a given path. It has a clear verb and resource but doesn't distinguish itself from file-related siblings like file_info, read_file, or make_dir.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites such as whether the path must exist or whether hidden files are included. With zero annotations, there is no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.