filesystem_list_directoryList immediate entries in an approved directory with bounded pagination. Use path, limit, and offset to inspect files and subfolders for troubleshooting.
List immediate entries in an approved directory with bounded pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description usefully adds 'immediate entries' (non-recursive) and 'bounded pagination', which the annotations do not convey, but says nothing about error behavior for unapproved paths or ordering guarantees.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then the two most important scope constraints. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 explained, and annotations carry the full safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter semantics, which is minor for a three-parameter listing tool where the names are self-evident.
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 provides no meaning for any of the three parameters: it never explains that 'path' is the required target, that 'limit' defaults to 50, or that 'offset' controls pagination position. 'Bounded pagination' only vaguely gestures at limit/offset without defining their semantics or bounds.
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 (List) and resource (immediate entries in a directory) with scope qualifiers ('immediate', 'approved', 'bounded pagination') that clarify it is non-recursive and sandboxed. It is clear on its own, but does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like filesystem_file_metadata or filesystem_read_text_file.
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 directory' implies a precondition (only allowlisted paths are valid), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative, and no mention of what to do if a path is rejected or how this differs from reading file metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.