Scalene-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_project_files

List project files matching a glob pattern, with configurable depth and exclusions, to locate relevant files for analysis.

Instructions

List project files matching pattern, relative to project root.

Args: pattern: Glob pattern (*.py, src/**, etc.) max_depth: Maximum directory depth to search exclude_patterns: Comma-separated patterns to exclude

Returns: [relative_path, ...] sorted alphabetically

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": "list_project_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`pattern`	No	*.py
`max_depth`	No
`exclude_patterns`	No	.git,__pycache__,node_modules,.venv,venv

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (sorted relative paths) and parameters, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, performance, or handling of symlinks/hidden files. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences plus Args) with no fluff. Primary purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section is structured for readability. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema (implied from description), the description covers the main functionality and return format. It could mention behavior for empty results or error cases, but overall complete for typical use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'pattern' as glob, 'max_depth' as maximum depth, and 'exclude_patterns' as comma-separated patterns, adding meaning beyond schema defaults and types. Only minor omission: no mention of default excludes like .git.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'project files' with a specific scope 'matching pattern, relative to project root'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying file listing, which none of the siblings do.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when needing to list project files with glob patterns, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since siblings are not file-listing tools, the intended use is clear.

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

Deploy Server