Claude File Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Show a compact project tree

list_tree

Render a compact folder and file tree with box-drawing characters, skipping node_modules, .git and other service folders by default while limiting depth and entries for a clean overview.

Instructions

Renders a compact tree of folders and files with box-drawing characters. Much less noisy than a recursive list_directory. Skips node_modules, .git, .mcp and other service folders by default; limits depth and total entries.

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_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Folder to render (defaults to root)	.
`depth`	No	How many levels to show
`ignore`	No	Additional names/globs to skip
`show_files`	No	Show files (false = folders only)
`max_entries`	No	Maximum number of entries to print
`show_hidden`	No	Show names starting with a dot
`include_sizes`	No	Show file sizes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 visual format, default ignored folders, and implicit depth/entry limits, but does not explain read-only nature, permissions, error behavior, or how truncation is indicated.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads what the tool renders, and uses the remaining space for useful differentiation and defaults. No sentence is wasted.

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 seven-parameter, annotation-free listing tool with no output schema, the description covers rendering style, sibling comparison, default exclusions, and limit behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about truncation signaling and read-only safety.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including defaults and ranges. The description adds context about default skips and limits but does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema for most parameters.

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: renders a compact folder/file tree with box-drawing characters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a recursive list_directory, so an agent can recognize its role among siblings.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as a less-noisy alternative to a recursive list_directory and notes default skipping of service folders plus depth/entry limits. It does not state explicit exclusions or when another listing tool would be preferable, but the context is strong.

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