Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mesa-clm

mesa-clm

by idss-mesa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ds_get_file_info

Retrieve detailed metadata for a file or directory to inspect paths, types, and properties before processing or annotation.

Instructions

Retrieve detailed metadata about a file or directory.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ds_get_file_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe path to the file (data-object) or directory (collection).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, does not disclose whether access permissions or tickets are required, and says nothing about what the returned metadata contains. 'Detailed metadata' is left undefined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target come first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a top score given the missing routing and behavior information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the two things an agent would want: what constitutes 'detailed metadata' and how this differs from ds_get_metadata. With no annotations and no output schema, more context was warranted.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the data-object/collection mapping. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The verb 'Retrieve' plus the resource 'detailed metadata about a file or directory' clearly states what the tool returns, and it even names the two entity types it handles (file/directory). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ds_get_metadata or from ds_list_directory_details, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used rather than ds_get_metadata, ds_read_file, or ds_list_directory_details, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets a purpose but no routing guidance.

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