storage_list_filesList files and directories in Oceanum cloud storage by path, with optional recursive listing, to inspect and manage stored ocean datasets.
List files and directories in Oceanum cloud storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory path to list (default: root "/"). | / |
| recursive | No | Whether to list subdirectories recursively. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, authentication, non-recursive default behavior, or rate/pagination limits, leaving behavioral traits to inference.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than maximal information density.
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 tool is simple (two optional params) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations the agent gets no explicit confirmation of the read-only nature or permission requirements, leaving a small but real gap for an otherwise minimal definition.
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 both 'path' and 'recursive' are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., what a recursive listing returns) beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories in Oceanum cloud storage'), which an agent can easily distinguish from sibling reads like storage_file_info or storage_read_file. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not differentiated at the highest level.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The listing verb implies a browse/explore use case, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over storage_file_info or datamesh_search_catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.