List directories or stat a single file on a remote host to verify deployments, check permissions, and find logs before download.
List a directory on a remote host, or stat a single remote file. Use to check whether a deployment landed, inspect permissions, or find log files before downloading them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| host | Yes | ||
| remotePath | No | / |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two operating modes (directory listing vs single-file stat), but says nothing about authentication expectations, error behavior on missing paths, or that the operation is non-mutating.
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?
Two tight sentences: the core behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by practical use cases. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the undocumented 'all' parameter and absent behavioral cues (read-only nature, error handling) leave real gaps for a 3-parameter 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It hints at path semantics via 'directory' vs 'single remote file', but adds nothing about remotePath's default of '/', and the 'all' parameter (presumably hidden-file inclusion) is unexplained in both schema and description.
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 concrete verbs (list, stat) and resources (remote directory, single remote file), so the dual-mode behavior is immediately clear. It doesn't name which siblings to prefer over it, though the reference to finding files 'before downloading them' implicitly points at sftp_download.
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?
Gives three concrete when-to-use scenarios: verifying a deployment landed, inspecting permissions, and locating log files prior to download. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.