List files and folders in a Dropbox path to browse directory contents; use an empty path for root and set a limit to control returned entries.
List files and folders in a Dropbox path (empty path = root).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Folder path (empty string for root) | |
| limit | No | Entries to return (max 2000, default 100) | |
| access_token | No | Dropbox access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing about pagination (Dropbox listings use a cursor; the limit alone will not exhaust large folders) or the shape of returned entries, which are genuine behavioral concerns for this tool.
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 with no filler; the scope-defining parenthetical is placed immediately after the core action.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what entries look like or how to page through a folder with more than the limit. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, this is adequate but leaves a real operational gap around pagination.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description's 'empty path = root' restates the schema's own 'empty string for root' rather than adding information (e.g., path format, leading slash rules).
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 specific verb and resource ('List files and folders in a Dropbox path') and clarifies the root case. It does not reference the sibling dropbox_search, which also returns file listings, so an agent must infer the distinction between enumerating a folder and searching across the account.
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?
The parenthetical 'empty path = root' gives minimal usage context for one parameter, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus dropbox_search or dropbox_read_file. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.