FileScopeMCP

by admica

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like 'create_file_tree', 'delete_file_tree', and 'select_file_tree' handle tree management, while 'read_file_content', 'get_file_summary', and 'set_file_summary' focus on file content operations. The separation between listing functions ('debug_list_all_files', 'list_files', 'list_saved_trees') and importance calculations ('get_file_importance', 'set_file_importance', 'recalculate_importance') is well-defined, preventing misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. Verbs like 'create', 'delete', 'list', 'get', 'set', 'read', 'find', 'generate', 'select', and 'recalculate' are used predictably with corresponding nouns. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the tool set highly readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing file trees and analyzing file importance in a project. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects such as tree configuration, file listing, content access, importance ranking, and diagram generation. This number is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, fitting the server's purpose effectively.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for file tree management and file analysis. It includes creation, selection, listing, and deletion of trees, along with operations for reading, summarizing, and setting importance for files. Tools like 'recalculate_importance' and 'generate_diagram' add advanced functionality, leaving no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures in this domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 11, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at creation and loading behaviors but doesn't disclose critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid directories), or returns any output. For a tool that likely involves file system operations, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create or load'), though it could be more specific. The structure is straightforward, but the brevity contributes to vagueness rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of file system operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'create' involves (e.g., scanning, JSON generation) or 'load' entails (e.g., reading from disk, validation). For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output, more behavioral and result context is needed.
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%, with clear descriptions for 'baseDirectory' and 'filename'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) or usage context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or load a file tree configuration' states a purpose but is vague about what 'create' and 'load' entail. It mentions 'file tree configuration' but doesn't specify if this involves scanning directories, generating JSON, or both. Compared to siblings like 'list_files' or 'select_file_tree', it lacks clear differentiation in scope or operation.
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 versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_files', 'select_file_tree', and 'list_saved_trees', the description doesn't indicate if this is for initial setup, persistence, or retrieval of configurations. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the base directory must exist or the filename must be unique.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'most important files' but doesn't explain how importance is determined (e.g., based on scores from other tools like 'get_file_importance'), what the output format is, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involves ranking or filtering based on importance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how importance is defined, what the output includes (e.g., file names, scores), or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_file_importance'. More context is needed for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'limit' and 'minImportance' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying importance-based filtering, which aligns with 'minImportance' but doesn't elaborate further. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Find the most important files') with a specific verb and resource, but it's vague about what constitutes 'important' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_file_importance' or 'list_files'. It provides basic direction but lacks specificity.
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 versus alternatives like 'get_file_importance' (which might retrieve importance scores) or 'list_files' (which might list all files). The description implies a ranking or filtering based on importance, but it doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing aspects like read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., file not found), response format, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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, direct sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'summary' entails, potential return values, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a tool with no structured output documentation, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'filepath' parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately without extra detail from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('summary of a specific file'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_importance' or 'read_file_content', which also retrieve file metadata/content, leaving the exact purpose somewhat vague.
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 versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_file_importance' and 'read_file_content' that might serve similar retrieval purposes, the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'select' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this loads the tree into memory, sets a default context, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational details needed for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Select an existing file tree to work with'. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness may contribute to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'select' entails operationally, what happens after selection (e.g., sets context for other tools), or the return value. For a tool with one parameter and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.
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%, with the parameter 'filename' documented as 'Name of the JSON file containing the file tree'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select an existing file tree to work with' states a clear verb ('select') and resource ('file tree'), but it's vague about what 'select' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_file_tree' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't clarify how this differs from 'list_saved_trees' or other file-related tools.
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 versus alternatives. The description implies it's for selecting an existing file tree, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have saved trees), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_saved_trees' or 'create_file_tree'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related files), or provides confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every word contributing to clarity, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as safety warnings, return values, or error handling, which is insufficient for a mutation tool that deletes configurations, especially compared to siblings that handle file trees non-destructively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filename' documented as 'Name of the JSON file to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a file tree configuration'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_saved_trees' or 'select_file_tree', which might involve file tree configurations without deletion, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing file tree), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_file_tree' or 'list_saved_trees', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a diagram but doesn't explain what happens after generation (e.g., where the diagram is saved, if it's displayed or returned as data, or any side effects like file creation). For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence: 'Generate a Mermaid diagram for the current file tree.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., whether it returns a file path, diagram data, or nothing), behavioral aspects like side effects, or usage context relative to siblings. For a diagram-generation tool with rich parameters, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
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 high at 86%, with most parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'maxDepth' has description 'Maximum depth for directory trees (1-10)'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage but doesn't compensate for any gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a Mermaid diagram for the current file tree.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('Mermaid diagram'), and scope ('current file tree'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_file_tree' or 'list_files,' which could also involve file tree operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create_file_tree' (which might create a textual representation) or 'list_files' (which might list files without a diagram), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'importance ranking' means, the return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filepath' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'importance ranking' entails or format details), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('importance ranking of a specific file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_important_files' or 'recalculate_importance', which prevents a score of 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_important_files' (which might list important files) or 'recalculate_importance' (which might update rankings). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like file size limits, encoding handling, error conditions (e.g., missing files), or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, binary data, structured content) or address potential complexities like large files or permission issues. Given the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filepath' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('content of a specific file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (which lists files) or 'get_file_summary' (which provides summaries), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_file_summary' or 'list_files', there's no indication whether this tool should be preferred for raw content retrieval or if it has specific use cases compared to other file-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a manual setting operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address whether this overwrites existing values, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation of success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'recalculate_importance'. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed.
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%, with both parameters ('filepath' and 'importance') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('manually set') and target ('importance ranking of a specific file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_importance' (read) or 'recalculate_importance' (automatic calculation), which would be needed for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recalculate_importance' (automatic calculation) or 'get_file_importance' (read-only). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as file existence or permissions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets a file summary, implying a mutation operation, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like error conditions, response format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('filepath' and 'summary'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but minimal value.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('summary of a specific file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_file_summary', which retrieves rather than sets file summaries, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_file_summary' for retrieval, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all saved file trees') but doesn't describe what 'saved file trees' means, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'saved file trees' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool. No additional semantic value is required or provided.
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 'List all saved file trees' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('saved file trees'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'debug_list_all_files', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_files' or 'debug_list_all_files'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the operation recalculates values 'for all files', implying a batch mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's destructive to existing data, execution time, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), expected output, or error conditions. The tool's complexity (recalculating for all files) warrants more context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 clearly states the action ('Recalculate') and target resource ('importance values for all files'), with a specific criterion ('based on dependencies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_importance' (read-only) and 'set_file_importance' (manual setting), but doesn't explicitly name them. Purpose is specific and non-tautological.
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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after dependency changes), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'find_important_files' or 'set_file_importance'. Usage context is implied only by the action 'recalculate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'current file tree' means, whether this requires prior setup (e.g., via 'select_file_tree'), or the format of the output (e.g., a list of paths). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about dependencies (e.g., relation to 'select_file_tree') and output details, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in this server's ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all file paths in the current file tree'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_files', which suggests similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_files' or 'find_important_files'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a selected file tree, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all files') and adds key detail ('with their importance rankings'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on behavior, output format, or usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the lack of inputs.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'files in the project', specifying they come with 'importance rankings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_important_files' (which likely filters) and 'debug_list_all_files' (which may include debug info), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_saved_trees' (which lists trees, not files), so it's not a perfect 5.
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 versus alternatives like 'find_important_files' (for filtered results) or 'debug_list_all_files' (for detailed output). The description implies it lists all files, but doesn't specify contexts like initial exploration or when importance data is needed, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FileScopeMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/admica/FileScopeMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/admica/FileScopeMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FileScopeMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/admica/FileScopeMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/admica/FileScopeMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/admica/FileScopeMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server