List files and folders in an HPC cluster directory over SSH, optionally filtered by a glob pattern. Shows permissions, sizes, and timestamps without reading file contents.
List a directory on the cluster (ls -lh). Does not fetch file content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path on the cluster | |
| pattern | No | Optional glob, e.g. '*.bam' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are formatted like 'ls -lh', which hints at the return shape, but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or performance on very large directories.
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?
Two short sentences, the primary action front-loaded and the delimiting constraint second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool there is no output schema, and the '(ls -lh)' note gives the agent an idea of the return format. The only meaningful gap is behavior on very large listings or whether results are capped, which is minor for this tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'path' (absolute path) and 'pattern' (glob example) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or interpretation detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 and resource ('List a directory on the cluster'), with the '(ls -lh)' gloss making the operation concrete. The clause 'Does not fetch file content' separates it from file-reading siblings like hpc_read_file and hpc_head_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The negative scope ('Does not fetch file content') implies when to prefer a read tool instead, which is a useful usage boundary. However, no alternative is named and there is no guidance on required access, path validity, or what to do for large directories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.