Lists a depth-limited directory tree under a chosen subdirectory to help AI clients inspect knowledge base structure before searching or organizing files.
List the directory tree under subdir (depth-limited).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| subdir | No | . |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'List' implies read-only, but it says nothing about traversal behavior, output size limits, symlink handling, or error conditions for a missing subdir. The only behavioral disclosure is the parenthetical 'depth-limited', which is vague since the actual default (2) lives in the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read. The doubled backticks around ``subdir`` are a minor formatting artifact but don't hurt comprehension.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a traversal tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage the description leaves too much unstated: depth semantics, defaults, and whether the listing is recursive or a single level. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it names `subdir` and gestures at `depth` via 'depth-limited', but never explains what depth counts (directory levels vs. file counts), that it defaults to 2, or that subdir defaults to '.'. An agent still has to guess the meaning of both parameters.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (directory tree) with a scoping qualifier (under subdir, depth-limited), which cleanly separates it from retrieval siblings like kb_search or kb_read_document. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of 5.
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 on when to prefer this over kb_search, kb_scan_inbox, or kb_status. The agent must infer that this is for structural browsing rather than content lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.