Retrieve file metadata including size, creation and modification times, and extension from a path relative to the workspace root. Use it to inspect file details before further operations.
Get metadata about a file: size, modified/created time, extension.
Args: path: Path to the file, relative to the workspace root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation by describing the returned metadata and does not include any misleading claims. It could add whether the file must exist or what happens on failure, but the read-only nature is clear.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded and the parameter explanation is clearly separated under an Args heading.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what metadata is returned and how to specify the path. It could mention error behavior or whether the file must already exist, but it covers the essentials for correct invocation.
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 description compensates by explaining that 'path' is relative to the workspace root. This is essential context that the bare schema does not provide, though it does not cover edge cases like symlinks or absolute paths.
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 (Get) and resource (metadata about a file) and enumerates the exact fields returned (size, modified/created time, extension). It is clearly distinct from read_file and file_exists, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
The phrase 'metadata about a file' implies using this for file attributes rather than content, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the sibling read_file or file_exists as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.