Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

path_info

Read file or directory metadata, including size and bounded digest, on allowed paths without authorizing writes. Use for non-mutating checks only.

Instructions

Read-only file size and bounded digest; never authorizes a write.

Use for non-mutating file or directory metadata checks on an allowed path, including size/digest when available. Not a write grant and not proof of user consent.

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": "path_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the target within the already-configured Owner read/edit roots; path alone grants no access.

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 burden and does meaningful work: it declares read-only behavior, that the call never authorizes a write, that results are 'bounded' and only available 'when available', and that the path confers no access on its own. It stops short of describing failure behavior for inaccessible or missing paths, but the safety profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee. There is mild redundancy between 'never authorizes a write' and 'Not a write grant and not proof of user consent', though the latter adds a distinct consent caveat.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything that structured fields do not: safety framing, scope of the digest, and availability caveats. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the path and its confinement to configured read/edit roots. The description reinforces the access framing but adds no format or resolution detail beyond that, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 names a concrete resource and result: file size and a bounded digest for a path, with the read-only nature stated up front. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, sha256_file, so an agent must infer that this returns a bounded digest rather than a full hash.

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?

It states a positive usage condition ('non-mutating file or directory metadata checks on an allowed path, including size/digest when available'), which is real guidance. However, it names no alternative and gives no exclusion rules, so choosing between this and sha256_file, list_folder, or find_files is left to inference.

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