Nemeton MCP

by juergenkoller-software

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

file_list

List files in a directory inside a virtual machine by specifying the VM and path.

Instructions

List files in a directory inside a VM.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vm": "<vm>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "file_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes	VM name or identifier
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), return format, or side effects. The minimal statement is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loads only the basic action. While no words are wasted, it omits critical details, making it under-informative.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., just names, full metadata), error handling, or any limitations. It is incomplete for a listing tool in a VM context.

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 50% (only 'vm' has a description). The description does not explain the 'path' parameter's expected format (absolute vs relative) or behavior (e.g., wildcard support). It adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists files in a directory inside a VM, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like file_download and file_upload, but doesn't clarify if the listing includes metadata or is recursive.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as file_download or console_execute. The description lacks any contextual or exclusionary information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.