Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
file-manager-mcp

file-manager-mcp

by asd369932
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_dir

List files and folders in a directory, returning each item's name, type, size, and modification time, with optional pattern filtering.

Instructions

列出目录内容(最多 500 项)。返回名称/类型/大小/修改时间。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_dir"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo.
patternNo*

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a truncation limit (max 500 items) and the returned fields, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, recursion into subdirectories, symlink handling, or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core list action plus the item cap are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is somewhat redundant, and the tool is simple with only two optional parameters. However, the total absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves meaningful gaps for how to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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, yet it never mentions either the path or pattern parameter or their defaults. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above 1, but the description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list directory contents) that an agent can easily distinguish from read_file, write_file, and search. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search', which can also surface file listings, but the core 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never says when to prefer list_dir over search, nor how the pattern parameter interacts with listing. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools