Retrieve file or folder size, type, and last modification date for a specified path to inspect metadata before organizing or transferring items.
Consulta tamaño, tipo y fecha de modificación.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the retrieved fields (size, type, modification date), but with an output schema present this adds limited behavioral context and omits error or permission behavior.
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?
One short sentence with no redundant phrasing or filler. It is front-loaded, but the extreme sparsity is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.
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 simple read-only stat tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is barely adequate. It states the retrieval fields but omits parameter semantics, usage context, and error behavior, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the o2/cloud storage siblings.
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% and the single required 'path' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain what path should point to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Consulta) and the attributes it retrieves (tamaño, tipo, fecha de modificación), but does not name the resource (file/object) or distinguish itself from siblings like o2_list. The required path parameter implies it operates on a storage path, so an agent can infer stat semantics.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, no alternatives such as o2_list or o2_status are mentioned, and no prerequisites are stated. The description is purely a capability statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.