Lists remote directory contents via SFTP, returning file name, type, size, permissions, and modification timestamp for server inspection.
List remote directory contents via SFTP, returning filename, file type, file size, permissions, and modification timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | The remote path to list. Defaults to remote home/current directory if omitted. | |
| serverId | Yes | The ID of the configured target server. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur (e.g., invalid path, connection failure), or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in disclosing operational behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and then lists the return fields with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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 simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the core function and return fields. However, it lacks context about error handling, whether listing is recursive, or any operational constraints. Given no annotations and no output schema, more detail on edge cases or limitations would be helpful, but the basic usage is adequately specified.
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% for both parameters (path and serverId), so the schema already documents them clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on defaults, formatting, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 the action (List), the resource (remote directory contents), the method (via SFTP), and the specific fields returned (filename, file type, file size, permissions, modification timestamp). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_read_file (reads file content) and ssh_execute_command (runs commands).
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 this tool is for listing directories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling names give context, but no direct guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.