Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

file_info

Get file or directory metadata including size, creation time, modification time, file type, and read/write access.

Instructions

Return metadata for a file or directory.

Includes size, creation time, modification time, file type, and whether the path is readable/writable.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "file_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the file or directory.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metadata fields and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., nonexistent path), symlink handling, or permission requirements. Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the main action and then lists metadata fields efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple metadata tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what input is needed. It could mention error cases, but the low complexity and presence of output schema reduce the burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes path as 'Path to the file or directory.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return metadata for a file or directory' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the metadata fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or file_exists, even without explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies when to use it (when metadata is needed), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like file_exists or list_directory. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools