pico-bay

Official

by ctrlpi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

List board files

pico_files_list

Read-only

Lists all files on a connected MicroPython or CircuitPython board and reports Flash and RAM usage; optionally include hidden files.

Instructions

List the complete board filesystem and report Flash and RAM usage. Hidden files (names starting with .) are omitted unless show_hidden is true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>"
    },
    "name": "pico_files_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board_id`	Yes	Stable board UID returned by pico_boards_list, or its current serial device path.
`show_hidden`	No	Include hidden files (starting with .).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns storage usage figures and applies a hidden-file filter by default, neither of which is derivable from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and the default hidden-file behavior front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by disclosing that the result includes Flash and RAM usage alongside the file list. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the dot-prefix convention for hidden files. The description restates the show_hidden semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List the complete board filesystem') and adds a non-obvious side effect (Flash and RAM usage reporting). It is clearly distinct from read/write/delete siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is the browse/inspect tool versus pico_file_read or pico_path_delete, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or statement of prerequisites beyond board_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server