Lists remote directory entries with structured metadata—type, permissions, owner, size, and modified date—so agents can inspect files over SSH before managing them.
List remote directory entries with structured file metadata (type, permissions, owner, size, modified date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Optional SSH connection target. If omitted, uses default profile (homelab). | |
| dirPath | Yes | Absolute remote directory path. |
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 must carry behavioral context. It discloses that results include structured file metadata, which is useful, but it omits auth requirements, default connection behavior when target is omitted, and any handling of symlinks, hidden files, or errors.
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 wasted words. The metadata list is compact and directly relevant to the tool's output.
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 schema fully documents the two parameters and the description names the returned metadata fields, which is helpful given there is no output schema. Still, the description lacks usage guidance and key operational context, leaving it only minimally complete for an SFTP listing tool.
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 the nested target object and dirPath are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 remote directory entries.' It also names the returned metadata fields (type, permissions, owner, size, modified date), which helps distinguish it from file-reading siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as sftp_read_file.
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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like sftp_read_file for file contents, nor does it describe prerequisites or selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.