filesystem_file_metadataRetrieve safe metadata for an approved readable file without reading its contents. Use it to inspect file attributes for troubleshooting without accessing file contents.
Return safe metadata for an approved readable file without reading its contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that it does not read file contents — but does not disclose what 'safe metadata' actually contains or how it handles non-approved/unreadable paths.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the key constraint (no content read) front-loaded and no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The safety profile is covered by annotations. The main residual gap is the undefined term 'approved', but for a low-complexity read tool the description is essentially sufficient.
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?
With a single 'path' parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantics. 'Approved readable file' hints that the path must reference a pre-approved file, adding marginal meaning, but it does not clarify path format or error behavior for unapproved 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 (Return) and resource (metadata for an approved readable file), and the phrase 'without reading its contents' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling filesystem_read_text_file. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous enough for selection.
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 'approved readable file' implies a precondition (the file must be approved/readable), which gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement and no alternative tool named, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.