Retrieves metadata for a file or folder in a cloud volume at a specified path. Check size, type, and other properties before browsing, transferring, or organizing files.
Metadata de un archivo o carpeta de una nube.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| volume | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations—it does not mention permissions, scope, error behavior, or any operational context. Minimal added value.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal 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?
For a stat tool with an output schema and annotations, return values and safety are covered. However, the description leaves the required volume/path semantics, sibling differentiation, and any usage context unaddressed, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it reliably.
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 0% for the two required parameters (volume, path), so the description must compensate, but it does not. 'archivo o carpeta' loosely hints that path targets a file or folder, yet volume is never explained and no format or expected values are given.
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 names the resource and information type (metadata of a file or folder in a cloud), which is more than a tautology, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb like 'retrieve' and does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as cloud_list or o2_stat. An agent can infer it reads metadata, but the purpose is not sharply stated.
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 on when to use this tool versus cloud_list, cloud_quota, or other stat/list siblings. It gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must 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.