Lists files and directories on an opened remote SSH or Docker target, returning names, types, and sizes for browsing remote filesystems.
List directory entries on an opened remote target. Returns item names, types (DIR/FILE), and sizes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory path on remote target | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of entries to return (default: 500) | |
| handle | Yes | READY target handle (e.g. target-1) |
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 usefully discloses the return shape (item names, DIR/FILE types, sizes), which is valuable since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or how the optional path is resolved when omitted.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents following. No filler, though it is minimal enough that a little more scoping detail would not have hurt.
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 description covers return values, which matters since no output schema exists, but it omits what happens when the optional path is not supplied, how limit interacts with the listing, and pagination behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a discovery tool.
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%, so all three parameters (path, limit, handle) are already documented in the schema, including the default of 500 and the READY handle example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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+resource ("List directory entries") scoped to "an opened remote target," which cleanly separates it from siblings like cascade_remote_read, cascade_remote_find, and cascade_remote_grep. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so differentiation rests on the reader's inference from the sibling names.
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?
"On an opened remote target" hints that a READY handle is a prerequisite, which is mild usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to use ls versus cascade_remote_find or cascade_remote_grep, and no when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.