FileMCP

listDirectoryTool

List files and folders in a directory under AgentFiles by supplying a relative directory path.

Instructions

Lists files and folders in a directory under 'AgentFiles'.

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": {
      "dirPath": "<dirPath>"
    },
    "name": "listDirectoryTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dirPath`	Yes	The directory path to list, relative to the 'AgentFiles' directory.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	A newline-delimited list of entries or an error message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds little: it does not state whether listing is recursive, how it handles a missing/invalid directory, or any error behavior. The 'under AgentFiles' scoping largely duplicates the schema's own 'relative to AgentFiles' wording.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The operation and its scope are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with only one well-documented parameter the definition is nearly complete for such a simple read operation. Minor gaps remain around recursion and error handling.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single dirPath parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (files and folders in a directory) and scopes it to 'AgentFiles'. It is functionally distinguishable from the write/read siblings, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as readFileTool, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The description only restates the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server