List a directory's contents, optionally including hidden files and detailed metadata. Supports local or remote Ubuntu machines with markdown or JSON output.
Egy konyvtar tartalmanak listazasa.
Args: params (ListFilesInput): path, all, long, host, response_format. Returns: str: A konyvtar bejegyzesei.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| 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?
The description adds a return-type note ('Returns: str: A konyvtar bejegyzesei') but otherwise does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not contradict the annotations and is minimally adequate for a read-only listing tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the Args section merely repeats parameter names already visible in the schema, and the overall structure is sparse rather than deliberately 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 description is enough for a simple read-only file listing tool: it states the purpose, the return type, and the parameter names. It lacks richer context such as output format behavior or when to use host/response_format, but the schema covers these details partially.
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?
The description lists parameter names (path, all, long, host, response_format) but provides no semantic explanation. The input schema actually documents each parameter in detail, but based on the reported 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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 clearly states the tool lists directory contents ('Egy konyvtar tartalmanak listazasa'), using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_file or file_info, but the directory-scoped phrasing makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or sibling tool exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameter list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.