Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tree

Display a directory tree view up to a specified depth, with options to include hidden files and adjust recursion depth (1–10).

Instructions

Return a directory tree view up to a specified depth.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRoot directory for the tree. Defaults to cwd..
max_depthNoMaximum depth to recurse (1–10). Default: 3.
show_hiddenNoInclude hidden files and directories.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that it returns a tree view and honors a maximum depth, but it does not mention behavior like hidden-file filtering (though default is in schema), symlink handling, or output formatting. Acceptable 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose and key constraint. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has a rich input schema, and presumably has an output schema to define the result format. The description is adequate for basic selection, though it lacks guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter (path, max_depth, show_hidden) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('directory tree view') with a clear qualifier ('up to a specified depth'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from flat-listing siblings like list_directory or file_info.

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 description implies usage when a hierarchical directory view is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_directory or other file-listing tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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