kinsta_environments_filesLists files in a Kinsta environment's file system using the environment ID. Retrieve directory contents to inspect or manage site files.
List files in an environment's file system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the trivial act of listing – it doesn't state whether files are listed recursively, whether directories are included, or what response format is returned (especially problematic since there's no output 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?
A single sentence with no wasted words; it's appropriately terse for a simple operation. However, the extreme brevity means it lacks essential context, so it's not a perfect score.
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?
Given there's no output schema, the description should explain what the returned file list looks like (paths, metadata, depth). It only says 'list files,' leaving the agent to guess about scope and format. For a tool with a single parameter, this is still a significant gap.
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 coverage is 100% for env_id, which is documented as 'The environment ID.' The description adds nothing beyond this, so it earns the baseline score of 3 – schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States the verb 'list' and resource 'files in an environment's file system,' making the core action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from related tools like kinsta_environments_webroot or kinsta_logs_get, which could also involve file listings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., whether env_id must be active or what file paths are expected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.