workspace_list_filesList files and folders in a Sigma workspace, optionally filtering by parent ID or type such as workbook, folder, data model, or template.
List files/folders. Optionally filter by parentId or type ('workbook', 'folder', 'data-model', 'template').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | No | ||
| type_filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and an output schema exists for return shape. The description adds the filterable facets and their accepted values, but says nothing about scope (which workspace the listing covers), pagination, or result ordering — modest added value above the structured fields.
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 zero filler: the operation first, then the optional narrowing filters. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a simple read-only lister whose annotations and output schema cover safety and returns. It is still incomplete on two things an agent would need: how this differs from 'workspace_list_all_files' and what the listing is scoped to when no parent_id is given.
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 no enum is declared, so the description carries the full burden — and it largely does, naming both the parentId filter and the type filter and supplying the four valid type values ('workbook', 'folder', 'data-model', 'template'). It misses only the default/root-level behavior when parent_id is omitted, and uses 'parentId' where the schema key is 'parent_id'.
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 and resource ('List files/folders') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the close sibling 'workspace_list_all_files', leaving the agent to infer scope from the tool name alone.
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 description only describes optional filters; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative 'workspace_list_all_files'. An agent has no stated basis for choosing between the two listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.