Claude File Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

File or folder info

file_info

Retrieves the type, size, and modification time of a file or folder so Claude can inspect local items before managing them.

Instructions

Returns the type, size and modification time of an item.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "file_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	File or folder path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a non-mutating read, which is a small signal, but nothing is said about behavior on a nonexistent path, permission errors, symlink handling, or whether both files and folders are accepted (only 'item' hints at this). For an unannotated tool, these are meaningful gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero wasted wording. The only mild weakness is the vague noun 'item' where 'file or folder' would match the title more precisely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description does state the three returned fields, which covers return values adequately. It remains incomplete on error/nonexistent-path behavior and on when to prefer it over metadata available from list_directory, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'File or folder path'. The description's word 'item' is broadly consistent with the schema but adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('returns') and specific returned fields (type, size, modification time) of a path-based item, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (content) or list_directory (listing). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before read_file to check size/type, or to use list_directory instead when enumerating a folder. The agent must infer the purpose entirely from the return-field list, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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