Browse a knowledge base's folder structure and inspect notes and resources in the current directory, including personal, book, client, and team knowledge bases.
浏览知识库文件夹结构及当前目录下的笔记等资源。支持个人、书籍、客户档案和团队知识库。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic_id | Yes | 知识库 ID | |
| directory_id | No | 目录 ID；不传表示根目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level (folder structure plus notes/resources in the current directory), which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about pagination, ordering, depth limits, permission requirements, or how much of the tree is returned; for a traversal tool those gaps matter.
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, front-loaded with the core action, with the scope note trailing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence about supported knowledge base types borders on marketing rather than operational detail.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must serve as the safety and return contract; it partially does by naming what gets returned. However, for a two-parameter traversal tool an agent still lacks pagination, depth, and permission context. Adequate but with gaps.
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 100%: topic_id and directory_id are both documented, including that omitting directory_id means root. The description adds no format, ID-source, or example detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete verb phrase ('浏览…文件夹结构及当前目录下的笔记等资源'), clearly a read/traversal operation over the knowledge base tree. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the create/update/delete_topic_directory siblings by being the browsing counterpart, but never names them. Purpose is clear; sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_topic_notes, list_topics, or list_reference_resources, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The sentence about supported knowledge base types (个人/书籍/客户档案/团队) is scope information, not usage routing. An agent must infer the selection criteria itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.