dpanel_explorer_listList files and directories at a specified path for a Docker volume, container, or environment mount point. Set mount_point to target the source and path to browse.
文件列表。mount_point ∈ volume:<卷名> | container:<容器ID> | docker:<环境名>。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | / | |
| mount_point | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read (listing) but never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, what happens on a nonexistent mount_point, or how errors surface. Only the minimum is conveyed.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler and the mount_point grammar front-loaded after the purpose. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description should cover the 'path' parameter, the read-only nature, and how it differs from sibling explorer reads. It covers only the mount_point syntax, leaving substantial gaps.
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, and it partially does: it documents the critical mount_point value grammar (volume:<name> | container:<id> | docker:<env>). However the 'path' parameter and its '/' default are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 clear verb+resource ('文件列表' = file listing) and the tool name corroborates it, but gives no differentiation from close siblings like dpanel_explorer_content, dpanel_explorer_stat, or dpanel_explorer_path_size, all of which also read from the explorer filesystem.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus dpanel_explorer_content or the other explorer read tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.