list_folderLists up to 100 entries in a specified folder and returns the total count, so an AI can inspect directory contents before organizing or filing documents.
Entries of a folder (first 100; 'total' gives the count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "list_folderOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing the 100-entry cap and that a 'total' count is returned, which an agent would otherwise not know. It still omits whether entries include both files and subfolders and how to reach entries beyond the first 100.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the 100-entry limit) is present. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essentials of scope and result size. However, the path format and the entry contents (files vs. folders, ordering) are gaps an agent would need in order to call and interpret it confidently.
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 carry the burden for the single 'path' parameter — but it never mentions path at all. Whether the path is absolute, root-relative, or accepts URI/traversal forms is left entirely unspecified.
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?
Names the resource (folder entries) and implies a listing operation, but the verb is elided into a noun phrase ('Entries of a folder'), so it reads as a fragment rather than a stated action. It is distinguishable from siblings like search or read_document, but only implicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus search, inventory, or read_document, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the folder must exist or be accessible). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-param schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.