Lists files and subfolders in an Obsidian vault directory, letting AI agents browse folder contents; leave the directory empty to inspect the vault root.
Lista arquivos e subpastas de um diretório do vault do Obsidian.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Diretório relativo (opcional, deixe vazio para listar a raiz do vault). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether listing is recursive, how hidden files/subfolders are treated, ordering, or output format, leaving meaningful gaps for even a simple read operation.
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 resource and scope come first and nothing is wasted.
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?
For a no-annotation, read-only listing tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Only the missing recursion/sibling-routing detail keeps it from a 5.
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 100% and the single optional 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the empty-value default to vault root. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('arquivos e subpastas de um diretório do vault'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like search_notes or read_note, which would be required for a 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only usage signal is the implicit 'listing a directory' meaning carried by the verb and noun.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.