gemini-cli-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Readfolder

ReadFolder

Reads a directory and returns a JSON array of entries, optionally recursive, to support structured file listing in MCP clients.

Instructions

Read a directory; return JSON array of entries (optionally recursive).

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": "ReadFolder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`recursive`	No
`max_entries`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says the result is a JSON array of entries but omits the default max_entries=2000 truncation cap, permission/error behavior, and whether entries include metadata (size, type, mtime) or just names — all material for a directory read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, the output format, and the recursion option all land immediately. It is arguably too terse for the disclosure burden it carries, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a truncating max_entries parameter, the description leaves key operational facts unstated; the existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining path defaults and entry-limit behavior.

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 for all three parameters, but it only gestures at 'recursive'. The 'path' default of '.' and especially the 'max_entries' cap of 2000 (a silent truncation risk) are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Read a directory') plus the return shape ('JSON array of entries'), which separates it from ReadFile/ReadManyFiles at a glance. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest sibling, FindFiles, which also walks directories, so it falls short of 5.

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 parenthetical '(optionally recursive)' is the only usage signal; there is no guidance on when to prefer this over FindFiles, SearchText, or ReadManyFiles, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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