Claude File Manager MCP

by sadd11

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Show the trash

list_trash

Lists deleted files and folders available for restoration, helping you find items to recover from the trash.

Instructions

Lists deleted files and folders that can be restored.

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_trash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 disclosure burden. It conveys that entries are deleted-but-restorable, but says nothing about ordering, volume/pagination, or whether trash is per-workspace or global — gaps that matter before an agent decides to enumerate it. It does not contradict anything, but it under-discloses for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves the return shape implicit (paths? original locations? deletion timestamps?). Minimum viable: an agent can call it safely, but cannot predict what it will get back or how to act on it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering or paging options that the schema does not support.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists deleted files and folders") plus a scope qualifier ("that can be restored"), which cleanly separates it from list_directory/list_tree in the sibling set. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the obvious companion tool restore_path, which is the natural next step implied by "can be restored." The agent must infer that this is a read-only discovery call whose results feed restore_path.

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