Retrieve file or directory metadata from a forensic disk image by path or inode, including times, attributes/ADS, NTFS $FILE_NAME times, and timestomp indicators.
Full metadata for a file/dir by path or inode ('inode:N' or 'N-128-3'): times, attributes/ADS, NTFS $FILE_NAME times with a timestomp indicator, istat text when sleuthkit is installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned fields (times, attributes/ADS, NTFS $FILE_NAME times, timestomp indicator) and a conditional behavior (istat text only when sleuthkit is installed). It omits that the operation is read-only and any failure modes for bad paths/inodes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the identifying formats and the return contents without filler. It is dense with forensic jargon but every clause carries information; no wasted sentences.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description has to do more. It covers the return contents well but leaves 'image' and 'part' semantics unexplained and gives no guidance on selecting this over sibling tools, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'ref' formats ('inode:N', 'N-128-3'), which is real added value, but 'image' and 'part' receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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?
States a concrete action (return full metadata) against a specific resource (file/dir), and pins down the two ways to identify it: path or inode. This differentiates it from siblings like ls (listing) and file_info, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the many sibling metadata/listing tools (ls, file_info, timeline). The agent must infer from 'Full metadata' alone that this is the deep single-entry inspection tool rather than a listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.