Retrieve read-only metadata for files or folders within allowed root directories by passing a path. Use it to inspect details without altering content.
Read-only: file/folder metadata within allowed roots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint 'within allowed roots,' but does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or output characteristics beyond that.
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, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse: it does not explain what metadata is returned or how the path parameter behaves. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves important operational context missing.
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?
The single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not explain its format, whether it must be absolute or relative, or how allowed roots are resolved. 'Within allowed roots' gives a partial constraint but fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 states a specific operation ('file/folder metadata') and a scope ('within allowed roots'), making it clear this is a read-only metadata retrieval tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like apple_files_list or apple_files_read_text, but the resource and read-only framing are clear.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as apple_files_list or apple_files_read_text, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.