Lists files and subdirectories with metadata from a remote directory over SFTP. Provide the absolute remote path to browse.
列出远程目录下的文件与子目录元数据列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotePath | Yes | 待浏览的远程目录绝对路径 | |
| connectionId | No | 目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. While '列出' implies a read-only operation, it omits key details such as authentication requirements, pagination, symlink handling, and whether the operation has any side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves gaps that could be addressed without sacrificing conciseness.
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, but the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure or metadata fields. It only states that a metadata list is returned, without specifying fields like name, size, or type, and no annotations cover safety or behavior.
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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for remotePath and connectionId, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb ('列出') and resource ('远程目录下的文件与子目录'), clearly identifying a directory-listing operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sftp_stat or sftp_read_file, but 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sftp_stat (for single file metadata) or sftp_read_file (for file contents). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.