Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krita-mcp

krita-mcp

by jowinjohnchemban
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_workspace

List files in a workspace folder with relative paths, sizes, and modification times. Supports folder selection, recursion, and result limits for inspecting directory contents.

Instructions

Files in the workspace folder (path relative to it, size, modified time).

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_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
folderNo
recursiveNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about the default recursive walk, the default limit of 200, whether results are truncated, or how errors (missing folder, permission denied) surface.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment with no leading verb, so the reader has to reconstruct the action. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than being earned economy.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It partially compensates by naming likely return fields (relative path, size, modified time), but omits the recursion default and the 200-item limit, which materially affect results.

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 all three parameters (limit, folder, recursive) are undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'workspace folder' and 'path relative to it' weakly hints at the folder argument, but limit and the recursion flag get no explanation at all.

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 fragment 'Files in the workspace folder' identifies the resource (files in the workspace) and the parenthetical implies a listing with path/size/mtime, so the purpose is inferable. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement that this enumerates a directory, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_resources or list_layers.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many list_* siblings (list_resources, list_layers, list_vector_shapes, list_brush_presets). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the filesystem-workspace lister rather than an asset or document lister.

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