Retrieve files and folders from the Jottacloud trash, which is excluded from default listings and search. Specify a trash path, limit results, or use a cursor to paginate through recoverable items.
List items in Jottacloud trash (~30 days). Trash is not included in default roots or search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Trash path; defaults to /Trash | |
| 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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, specifically the ~30-day retention window and the fact that trash is omitted from default roots and search. These are meaningful operational details not visible in the annotations or schema.
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?
Two short sentences carry significant information with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the exclusion detail is directly relevant to correct tool selection.
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 adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, but there is no output schema and the return format is not described. Additionally, cursor and limit are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving pagination behavior unclear.
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%; path has a description, but limit and cursor have none. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, so an agent is left guessing about pagination semantics and the meaning of limit and cursor.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and the specific resource ('items in Jottacloud trash'), and adds a useful retention detail (~30 days). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting trash is not included in default roots or search, so an agent can tell it apart from list_directory and search_files.
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 clear context for when this tool is needed: trash items are not surfaced by default roots or search, so this is the dedicated way to access them. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the exclusions make the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.