List files and folders at a specified Jottacloud path to view cloud storage contents.
List files and folders at a Jottacloud path (e.g. /Archive or /Archive/docs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path under a configured root, e.g. /Archive | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic listing action, such as pagination behavior, non-recursion, or how limit/cursor affect results.
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 efficient sentence with a clear front-loaded verb, resource, and useful path examples. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The description is minimally viable for a simple path-based listing operation, and the annotations cover read-only safety. But meaningful gaps remain around pagination parameters and when to choose this over sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with limit and cursor lacking any schema description. The description repeats path semantics already present in the schema ('/Archive') but offers nothing about pagination semantics, leaving two undocumented parameters unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders at a Jottacloud path'), with concrete path examples that clarify scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_roots or search_files, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_roots, get_file_info, search_files, or list_trash. The description states what it does but not when it should be preferred, and it offers no alternative conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.