Lists available directories and files on the Audiobookshelf server, enabling navigation and verification of media storage paths for library management.
Get api filesystem.
GET /api/filesystem
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries no additional burden for safety. However, it adds no behavioral context—such as what data is returned, whether it enumerates directories/files, or any constraints. This is a missed opportunity given the tool's ambiguity.
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?
The text is extremely terse, but brevity is not effective because it omits necessary context. The HTTP line 'GET /api/filesystem' is redundant for an MCP tool call and does not assist selection or invocation. It could have been replaced with a useful sentence about what is listed.
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?
Even with an output schema available, the description fails to explain the tool's role in the system. The name suggests listing the filesystem, but the description does not specify what entries are returned or how this tool fits with sibling operations. An agent would have to infer behavior from the name and surrounding tools.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (empty schema). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.
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?
The description states 'Get api filesystem' but does not explain what 'filesystem' means or that it lists filesystem contents. It is a vague paraphrase of the tool name, offering little beyond the resource name. It does not distinguish from other list_* tools or clarify the scope of the listing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of related tools like create_filesystem_pathexists or when a list might be appropriate. The description relies entirely on the name, which is insufficient for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.