Retrieve a paginated list of top-level MYBOX files and folders, optionally sorted by name, modified time, or size.
루트 파일/폴더 목록 조회
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | 정렬 기준 (예: name, modifiedTime, size) | |
| limit | No | 한 번에 가져올 최대 개수 | |
| order | No | 정렬 방향 | |
| offset | No | 페이지 오프셋 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it only says the operation lists items. It does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, whether results are paginated, ordering defaults, or what happens with empty roots.
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 phrase with zero padding, appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than exemplifying crisp completeness.
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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits read-only nature, pagination behavior, default sort/order, and how it relates to sibling listing tools. Something more is needed to call this correctly and 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 100% (sort, limit, order, offset each documented in the schema, with order having an enum), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 phrase '루트 파일/폴더 목록 조회' names a specific verb (조회/list) and resource (root files/folders), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like dms_list or dms_resourceId, leaving the agent to guess why a root-scoped listing exists separately.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as dms_list, and no prerequisites or scope constraints stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the root-level variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.