Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude File Manager MCP

Claude File Manager MCP

by sadd11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Show the allowed folders

list_roots

Lists the root folders the file manager may access, showing where relative paths resolve and which absolute paths are permitted.

Instructions

Lists the folders this server may work in. Relative paths in other tools resolve against the first root; absolute paths are accepted inside any listed root.

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_roots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that relative paths resolve against the first root and absolute paths must fall inside a listed root. It does not discuss error behavior or whether an empty root list is possible, but the core path-resolution semantics are exposed.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first states what the tool does; the second supplies the path-resolution context an agent needs for downstream calls.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return concept (folders the server may work in) and the important path-resolution rules. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or ordering, but it is substantially complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to compensate for. The schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly adds no parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the folders this server may work in.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from directory-listing siblings by emphasizing allowed roots rather than directory contents.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: discovering allowed roots and understanding how relative and absolute paths resolve in other tools. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as list_directory, but the allowed-root framing makes the intended use clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools