folder-index

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_files

List and filter files by name/glob, extension, kind, folder, size, or modified date, then sort results and view total count and size.

Instructions

List files by metadata. name: substring or glob (e.g. "invoice2025*"). sort: modified | oldest | size | name. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD. Also reports total count/size.

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": "find_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ext`	No
`kind`	No
`name`	No
`sort`	No	modified
`limit`	No
`folder`	No
`min_size_mb`	No
`modified_after`	No
`modified_before`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results report total count and size, but omits whether listing is read-only, how pagination/limit behaves, whether totals are pre- or post-limit, and any index or permission dependency.

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?

Front-loaded and compact, with no filler sentences. The fragment style is efficient, though terse, and every sentence adds some usable detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a nine-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete: most filters and the pagination limit are unexplained, and no alternative tool is named. The output schema may cover return values, but input behavior remains under-specified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% across nine parameters. The description clarifies name supports substring/glob, sort accepts modified/oldest/size/name, and dates use YYYY-MM-DD, but it leaves ext, kind, folder, limit, and min_size_mb undocumented.

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 and resource: 'List files by metadata,' and gives a sample name glob. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_files or recent_files.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The sibling search_files and recent_files are never referenced, so the agent must infer tool selection from names alone.

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

Deploy Server