vps-mcp-server

list_directory

List files and directories on a VPS at any path. Show detailed info like permissions, size, and date, and include hidden files when needed.

Instructions

List files and directories at a given path on the VPS

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_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Directory path to list (default: /)	/
`long_format`	No	Show detailed info (permissions, size, date)
`show_hidden`	No	Include hidden files (dotfiles)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists files and directories, but does not mention what information is returned (e.g., names only, permissions, sizes), whether hidden files are included by default, or any error conditions like nonexistent paths. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover these aspects, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and clearly states the resource and context, making it concise and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is relatively simple, but there is no output schema or mention of the return format. The description does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., a list of names, full details based on long_format), which is important for a tool without an output schema. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including path, long_format, and show_hidden. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('List') and its resource ('files and directories'), with a specific path parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads file contents) and list_services (which lists services).

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?

The description implies the tool is for exploring the filesystem, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like read_file or run_command. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the context of use somewhat implied.

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

Deploy Server