Encryptor MCP

list_folder

Read-only

Lists the direct contents of a folder in an unlocked vault, one line per item with type and size or link target. Makes no changes; use find to locate items across folders.

Instructions

List what's directly inside one folder of an open vault: one line per item, marked [folder], [file] (with its size) or [link] (with its target), or "(empty)". Use find instead when you don't know which folder holds something, and file_info for one item's details. Changes nothing. Fails if the vault is locked (call unlock) or the path isn't a folder.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vault`	Yes	The vault's name, as listed by the vaults tool, for example 'Taxes'.
`folder`	No	The folder to list, for example 'Taxes/2025'. '/' is the top of the vault.	/

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.4Oct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / folder / description

Added value: +"The folder to list, for example 'Taxes/2025'. '/' is the top of the vault."

addedInput schema / properties / vault / description

Added value: +"The vault's name, as listed by the vaults tool, for example 'Taxes'."

First observedv0.1.3Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so "Changes nothing" is largely redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it fails when the vault is locked (with the remedy, call unlock) or when the path isn't a folder. Those failure modes are genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, followed by alternatives and failure modes. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still conveys the format, the sibling alternatives, and the two failure conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 vault and folder are already documented in the schema, including the '/' default. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (list what's directly inside one folder) plus the exact output shape per item ([folder], [file] with size, [link] with target, or "(empty)"). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like find and file_info, which it names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: use find when the folder is unknown, use file_info for a single item's details. These are concrete alternative-and-condition pairings rather than implied usage.

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

Deploy Server