Lists a depth-limited directory tree under a specified subdirectory, capped at 600 lines, so you can inspect knowledge base structure without overwhelming output.
List the directory tree under subdir (depth-limited, max 600 lines).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| subdir | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits beyond the name: output is depth-limited and truncated at a max of 600 lines. It omits ordering, whether hidden entries are included, and what happens for a nonexistent subdir — all relevant to a 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the output cap is placed immediately after the action description.
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 structure need not be described, and the 600-line cap covers the main behavioral surprise. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the two parameters' meaning and error behavior under-specified for an agent picking defaults.
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 should compensate for two undocumented params. It references `subdir` and implies a depth limit, but never explains what the `depth` value means (default 2), nor that `subdir` defaults to '.' or how it resolves relative to the knowledge base root.
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+resource (list the directory tree) and scopes it to `subdir`, which separates it from content-oriented siblings like kb_read_document and kb_search. It does not explicitly contrast with kb_create_directory or kb_read_document, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. whether the subdir must already exist or how this differs from kb_read_document for browsing). The agent must 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.