List files and folders from OneDrive, optionally within a specified folder, to retrieve item details and IDs for browsing or workflow use.
List files and folders from OneDrive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return (max 200, default 50) | |
| folder_id | No | Folder item id (omit for root) | |
| access_token | No | OneDrive 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the listing is recursive or single-level, all of which matter for a listing tool with no output schema.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given how many sibling tools exist.
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?
The parameters are fully documented in the schema and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description should say what a listing entry looks like or whether results are paginated, and it says nothing about either.
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%, with limit, folder_id, and access_token each documented in the schema (including the max/default for limit and the root-folder omission rule). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific verb (list) and resource (OneDrive files and folders), which is clear enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related onedrive_search and onedrive_read siblings, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 choose this over onedrive_search (find a specific item) or onedrive_read (fetch content), nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid access token. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.