List files and subfolders in a Synology File Station folder with names, sizes, and modified times; filter, sort, and paginate results.
List a folder's contents with size and modified time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | folder path, e.g. "/media/film" | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| pattern | No | glob, e.g. "*.jpg" | |
| sort_by | No | name | |
| sort_direction | No | asc |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results include size and modified time; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about failure modes for invalid 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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than ruthless editing.
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, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 6-parameter listing tool with 33% schema coverage, the description omits pagination semantics and sorting behavior, leaving gaps an agent would need before invoking it.
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 only 33% across 6 parameters: only path and pattern are documented (and pattern's glob meaning is better explained in the schema). The description explains none of limit, offset, sort_by, or sort_direction, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('a folder's contents') and hints at returned fields (size, modified time). It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like filestation_list_shares, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filestation_list_shares or filestation_info, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. path format, permissions). The only clue is the path example buried in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.