Retrieve non-content metadata for an authorized file path, such as size, type, and timestamps, without reading file contents. Use it to inspect files safely while staying within read-only filesystem limits.
Return non-content metadata for an authorized path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only metadata (not content) is returned and that the path must be 'authorized', but it omits permissions requirements, error behavior, symlink handling, and what metadata fields are returned.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness is more under-specification than conciseness.
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 tool is structurally simple, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description should explain the returned metadata shape and path expectations; it does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the output or how to form a valid path.
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?
The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Calling it an 'authorized path' adds little: there is no guidance on absolute vs. relative paths, whether it must be a file or directory, or validation rules.
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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('non-content metadata'), and the phrase 'non-content' distinguishes it from the content-reading sibling read_file. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The phrase 'non-content metadata' implies the tool is for metadata-only requests rather than reading file contents, but the agent must infer that read_file is the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.