list_folderDiscover folder contents in an Obsidian vault: returns direct files and subfolders separately. Omit path to inspect root.
List the files and subfolders directly inside a folder. Omit the path or pass '/' for the vault root. Subfolders are reported separately from files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Vault-relative folder path. Empty for the vault root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists only direct contents (non-recursive) and reports subfolders separately from files. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the output structure without overstating anything.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and immediately address the root edge case and output structure. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential behavior: direct listing, root handling, and subfolder separation. It does not describe error behavior or the exact return format, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, these omissions are minor and unlikely to impede correct invocation.
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?
The schema already describes the path parameter as 'Vault-relative folder path. Empty for the vault root' with 100% coverage. The description adds the alternative of passing '/' for the root, a minor clarification that does not fundamentally alter the parameter meaning. Since the schema carries the bulk of the semantics, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and subfolders directly inside a folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on notes or search. It also specifies the root behavior and the separation of subfolders, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to list folder contents) and provides practical guidance on the path parameter ('Omit the path or pass '/' for the vault root'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is distinct enough that usage intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.