Lists files from the printer FTPS cache using implicit TLS, enabling quick inspection of remote directories and stored files.
List files on the printer FTPS cache (implicit TLS :990).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | Remote directory (default /) |
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 must carry the full burden. The description only says 'list files' and mentions the connection details, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, whether there are side effects, or what the return payload looks like. For a tool with zero annotations, this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler words. The essential information (verb, resource, connection detail) is front-loaded. Every word contributes value.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description tells the agent what the tool does and the endpoint, but it does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of filenames, with metadata) or any prerequisites. While it may be adequate for a simple listing operation, an agent might need more context about the expected output, so completeness is only partially achieved.
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?
The single parameter 'dir' is already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., syntax, format, or examples). Since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade it but also does not enhance it.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource ('files on the printer FTPS cache'), and includes the protocol/port detail. It clearly distinguishes from all sibling tools (stop, upload, print, etc.), which are about other operations. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The tool's purpose is self-evident, and none of the sibling tools overlap with listing files, so explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not critical. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'use this to see available files'), but the context makes it obvious. It is clear enough for an agent to route to it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.