XRootD MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List contents' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like what format the listing returns, whether it includes hidden files, recursion depth, sorting behavior, pagination, or error conditions for invalid paths. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the listing returns (file names, metadata, structure), how results are formatted, or what happens with empty or non-existent directories. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single 'path' parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'directory' which aligns with the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional context about path format requirements, relative vs absolute paths, or special directory indicators.

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 clearly states the action ('List contents') and target resource ('directory on the XRootD server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_directory_filtered', which appears to be a more specific variant of the same operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_directory_filtered', 'find_recent_files', and 'search_files' that likely offer overlapping or more specific functionality, there's no indication of when this basic listing tool is preferred over those alternatives.

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