Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
toolwrit

toolwrit

by emektor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Allowed Directories

list_allowed_directories
Read-only

Lists directories the server is permitted to access, including subdirectories, so you can verify available paths before accessing files.

Instructions

Returns the list of directories that this server is allowed to access. Subdirectories within these allowed directories are also accessible. Use this to understand which directories and their nested paths are available before trying to access files.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_allowed_directories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: subdirectories of the allowed roots are also accessible, which is a semantic detail an agent could not infer from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then the subdirectory scope, then the usage hint. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-format details need not be described. For a no-arg, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so 4 is the baseline. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the operation is server-scoped and takes no arguments.

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 ('Returns') and a precisely scoped resource ('directories that this server is allowed to access'), which is clearly distinct from the file/directory-listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_directory, but the 'allowed directories' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it: 'before trying to access files,' to learn which directories and nested paths are available. No when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, but the usage context is unambiguous for a zero-param introspection tool.

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

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools