ellmos-filecommander-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open Path

fc_open_path

Open an existing local file or folder in its default application. Returns launcher acceptance separately from user visibility, with a remote fallback.

Instructions

Startet für eine vorhandene lokale Datei oder einen Ordner die Standardanwendung. Die strukturierte Rückgabe trennt launcher_accepted von user_visible=unknown und nennt einen Remote-Fallback.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fc_open_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Existing local file or directory to open

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`fallback`	Yes
`launcher`	Yes
`platform`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`target_type`	Yes
`user_visible`	Yes
`launcher_accepted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.11.5Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the launcher may accept the request while user-visible outcome remains unknown, and there is a remote fallback. That is real side-effect and result-ambiguity disclosure beyond 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return-value caveat, with no filler. Slightly terse for the amount of behavioral nuance being conveyed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential risk (launch accepted ≠ user saw it). The main gap is lack of routing guidance versus fc_preview_file / fc_start_process, plus the description being in German while the tool name and siblings are English.

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% and the single parameter already carries 'Existing local file or directory to open'. The description restates the same constraint without adding format, path-style, or error-handling detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: starting the OS default application for an existing local file or directory. That is clearly distinct from fc_read_file, fc_copy or fc_execute_command, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest siblings (fc_preview_file, fc_start_process), so it stops short of a 5.

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: the tool applies to an 'existing local file or folder', which is an eligibility precondition, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over fc_preview_file or fc_start_process and no exclusion of cases. The agent must infer routing from the verb alone.

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