List files and subdirectories in an allowed absolute directory path on a target host, or omit the host to use the default.
List a directory under one of the configured allowed paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | target host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host | |
| path | Yes | absolute directory path to list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the access boundary (only configured allowed paths are listable), but says nothing about recursion depth, hidden files, symlink handling, ordering, or what an error on a disallowed path looks like.
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 and the access constraint placed immediately after the verb. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no return-shape documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about recursion behavior and result format. The access constraint is the only real context provided, which is thin for a filesystem 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (host, path) are documented in the schema, including the default-host behavior for the optional one. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('a directory') plus a scoping constraint ('under one of the configured allowed paths'), so an agent can tell it apart from read-oriented siblings like file_read and file_grep. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: you use it to enumerate a directory, and the 'configured allowed paths' phrase hints at the sandbox boundary. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to file_read or file_grep for content retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.