Filesystem MCP Server

by ai-yliu

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, list_directory shows contents, list_allowed_directories shows accessible paths, and read_file vs read_multiple_files handle single vs batch operations. The descriptions clearly differentiate overlapping concepts like searching vs listing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with clear action-object pairs like create_directory, move_file, and search_files. There are no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a filesystem server, covering essential operations without bloat. Each tool earns its place, from basic CRUD (create, read, write) to advanced utilities like search and batch reads, making it comprehensive yet manageable.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for filesystem operations, including CRUD (create, read, write, move/delete via move_file), metadata access, listing, searching, and batch processing. There are no obvious gaps, and agents can handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 9 of 9 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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
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 full burden. It hints at idempotency ('or ensure it exists') which is valuable, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions required, whether parent directories must exist, error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying both creation and idempotency in minimal text, with no wasted sentences.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what happens on success (e.g., returns created path, confirmation message), error handling, permissions, or system constraints. The idempotency hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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 the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path format, relative vs absolute). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('create') and resource ('directory'), and adds nuance with 'or ensure it exists' which clarifies idempotent behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'move_file', which would require more specific 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. With siblings like 'list_allowed_directories' and 'move_file', there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for directory creation versus other file system operations.
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 tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, error conditions (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), rate limits, or what 'detailed' metadata includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed metadata' includes (e.g., file size, permissions, timestamps), potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. This lack of context makes it incomplete 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed file/directory metadata'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'search_files', which might also provide metadata, 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_directory' or 'search_files'. It lacks context about whether this is for single-item metadata retrieval versus listing or searching, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that items are prefixed with '[FILE]' or '[DIR]', which adds some context about output format. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist), permissions required, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a filesystem.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and output format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity of filesystem operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (beyond the prefixes), error conditions, or behavioral traits like safety or side effects. For a tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.
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 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid paths or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('directory contents'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_file_info' or 'search_files' by focusing on listing contents rather than retrieving metadata or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_allowed_directories', which might have overlapping functionality.
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_allowed_directories' or 'search_files'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., directory existence), exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'move or rename' implies mutation, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, handles errors, or affects file metadata. This is a significant gap 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 resources, making it easy to parse 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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 the input schema already documents both parameters ('source' and 'destination') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or rename-specific semantics, but the baseline is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 with specific verbs ('move or rename') and resources ('files and directories'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_file' or 'create_directory' that might also handle file operations, preventing 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. With sibling tools like 'create_directory', 'write_file', and 'search_files' available, there's no indication of whether this is for relocation versus creation, or if it handles overwrites, permissions, or other constraints.
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 tool reads 'complete contents' but doesn't specify file size limits, encoding handling, error conditions (e.g., missing files), or performance implications. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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 resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values (e.g., content format, encoding), error handling, or constraints like file size. For a read operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path format examples, relative vs. absolute paths). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 target ('complete contents of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_info' (metadata) and 'read_multiple_files' (batch operation), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb+resource combination is specific but could be more precise about scope.
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 doesn't mention when to choose 'read_file' over 'read_multiple_files' for batch needs, 'get_file_info' for metadata only, or 'search_files' for content searching. There's no context about prerequisites like file existence or permissions, leaving usage decisions 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 full burden. While 'read' implies a non-destructive operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles missing/inaccessible files, whether it returns partial results on errors, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and concurrency aspect.
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 tool that reads multiple files with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the results come in (array of contents? object mapping paths to content?), how errors are handled, or any constraints on the number/size of files. Given the complexity of batch operations, 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% (the 'paths' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides about the array of file paths.
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 'Read multiple files simultaneously' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (multiple files), and specifies the concurrency aspect (simultaneously). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_file' which presumably reads single files, missing full 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. With sibling tools like 'read_file' (single file) and 'search_files' (search-based reading), there's no indication of when batch reading is preferred over sequential single-file reads or search operations.
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 mentions 'recursively' (a useful behavioral trait) but omits critical details like whether the search is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or error handling. For a search 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 with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('search') and includes the key modifier ('recursively'), 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.
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 (a search operation with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like result format, error cases, or performance implications, leaving significant gaps for an agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('path' and 'pattern') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of patterns or path constraints. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search for files/directories') and resource ('files/directories'), with the adverb 'recursively' adding specificity about the search scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'get_file_info', 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. With siblings like 'list_directory' (likely for listing without searching) and 'get_file_info' (likely for single-file details), the agent receives no help in choosing between them, leaving usage context implied at best.
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 'overwrite existing' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions required, whether it creates parent directories, error handling (e.g., if path is invalid), or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error cases) and doesn't explain return values or success criteria, which is inadequate for a write operation.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('path' and 'content') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on path format or content encoding). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Create new file or overwrite existing') which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' or 'move_file' by focusing on writing content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_directory' is also a creation tool).
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., path must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for appending vs overwriting), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'move_file' for relocation or 'read_file' for reading.
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 lists directories, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., list of paths, JSON structure), or if there are rate limits. For a tool 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, 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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate by stating what the tool does. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or usage context, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps in completeness.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter information.
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 ('List') and the resource ('all directories the server is allowed to access'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'search_files', which might also list directories but with different scopes or filters, preventing 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 such as 'list_directory' (which might list contents of a specific directory) or 'search_files' (which might filter results). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.

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:

[![filesystem-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-yliu/filesystem-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-yliu/filesystem-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![filesystem-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-yliu/filesystem-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-yliu/filesystem-mcp-server)

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/ai-yliu/filesystem-mcp-server'

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