Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_folder

Lists read-only directory entries under Owner-approved roots, with optional bounded recursion and an entry limit, so you can inspect folder structure without broad access.

Instructions

List bounded entries under Owner-approved read roots. Read-only; depth=0 preserves immediate children and the original schema. Depth 1 to 4 adds relative paths and bounded recursion, excluding private names, links and denied folders. Limit bounds output, not authorization.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Existing directory under Owner-approved read roots.
`depth`	No	Additional directory levels, 0 to 4; default 0 preserves immediate-child schema. Recursive entries include a relative path.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of returned entries, 1 to 200; default 100.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only, states that private names, links, and denied folders are excluded, and clarifies that limit constrains output volume rather than authorization. Remaining gaps are minor, such as what a response looks like when entries exceed the limit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with the read-only and scope guarantees front-loaded before the depth semantics. Slightly dense jargon ("bounded entries," "bounded recursion") costs a point versus plainer phrasing, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All three parameters are accounted for, exclusions are named, and an output schema exists so return shapes need no explanation. The one real omission is pagination behavior for large directories, which is conspicuous given the sibling list_folder_page.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by adding semantics the schema lacks: limit "bounds output, not authorization" and depth adds relative paths and bounded recursion with named exclusions. The path parameter's authorization precondition is reinforced beyond its schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List ... entries") scoped to "Owner-approved read roots," which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious sibling list_folder_page, so an agent must infer which one handles paged listings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description effectively encodes when to pick each depth value (0 = immediate children, 1-4 = recursive with relative paths), which is real selection guidance. But it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus siblings like find_files, path_info, or list_folder_page, leaving that routing to inference.

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