Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aktar

Aktar

Official
by getaktar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List watched folders

list_watched_folders
Read-only

Lists folders that Aktar automatically uploads new files from, showing each folder’s watch status, upload queue, and whether monitoring is paused.

Instructions

List the folders Aktar uploads new files from automatically, with their status and queue, and whether watching is paused.

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_watched_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 value by stating the response carries status, queue, and a paused flag. It does not spell out what 'queue' or 'status' values look like, keeping it below a 5.

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 padding; the scope-defining clause comes first and the returned fields follow. Nothing here fails to earn its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The one shortfall is that with no output schema, the shapes of 'status' and 'queue' are left unspecified, so a slightly richer return-value sketch would help.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and there is nothing further it needs to disambiguate.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("List the folders Aktar uploads new files from automatically") and even defines what a 'watched folder' is, which resolves ambiguity versus the sibling list_bucket/list_destinations. It stops short of naming a contrasting sibling, so 4 rather than 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: 'list the watched folders' suggests a discovery/status check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as list_destinations. For a zero-parameter listing tool that is a tolerable but real gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools