List project files matching a glob pattern, such as '**/*.py', to quickly identify relevant code and resources.
依照 glob 樣式列出專案內的檔案。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最多回傳幾筆 | |
| pattern | No | glob 樣式，例如 '**/*.py' 或 'src/**/*' | **/*.py |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as recursion behavior, sorting, or hidden files, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, and the glob-style detail is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could mention scope nuances like whether subdirectories are included by default, but the default glob pattern already implies recursive behavior.
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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the glob concept already present in the schema, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond what the structured input already provides.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: listing files in the project using a glob pattern. It is distinct enough from siblings like read_file or run_tests, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.
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?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating project files via glob patterns, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.