Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-code

mcp-code

by itgiup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_dir

Lists files and directories at a specified path within a read-only project folder, skipping common dependency folders and sensitive files.

Instructions

Liệt kê file/thư mục.

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_dir"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discharges none of it. Nothing is said about recursion, hidden files, symlinks, error behaviour for a nonexistent path, ordering, or result size — all of which an agent needs for a filesystem listing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but at four words it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded scope, constraint, or result note to make the brevity useful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a filesystem listing tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented path parameter, the definition says far too little for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented path parameter, but it never mentions the parameter at all. It does not clarify whether path is relative or absolute, whether it may point at a file, or that the default is the current directory.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The Vietnamese phrase "Liệt kê file/thư mục" does give a verb (list) and an object (files/directories), so the operation is identifiable. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name list_dir and offers no differentiation from the siblings read_file, search_code and write_file, which also operate on the file tree.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of search_code or read_file, nor any note about prerequisites such as permissions on the target directory. The only usage hint is implicit in the tool name.

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