List files in a Synology NAS shared directory using a relative path with pagination controls for limit and offset, enabling bounded browsing of directory contents.
List a shared directory using a relative path and bounded pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded pagination' and 'relative path' which give some behavioral context, but it does not disclose details like recursive listing, hidden file inclusion, or error behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List a shared directory') and then adds key modifiers ('relative path', 'bounded pagination'). Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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?
With no output schema, no nested objects, and only three parameters with defaults, the tool is relatively simple. The description covers the purpose and pagination, but it does not mention the response format, whether listing is recursive, or any special behaviors. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 carries the burden. It clarifies that 'path' is relative, which is not in the schema, and 'bounded pagination' implies that limit and offset control the result set. However, it does not explain the defaults or behavior of each parameter in detail, leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('a shared directory'), with additional specificity about using a relative path and bounded pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_files (which searches) and read_file (which reads content) without needing to open the schema.
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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention search_files for searching or read_file for reading file contents, nor does it state any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer usage from the name and basic description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.