List one-level directory entries inside a worker's authorized workdir tree to inspect files and folders, so agents can verify paths before reading or writing.
List directory entries (one level) within worker's authorized workdir parent tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| workdir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: non-recursive scope and confinement to the authorized workdir tree. It says nothing about permissions failures, error behavior, or what entries look like, so it is only partial for a filesystem tool.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification for a two-parameter tool.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the description as the only source of truth, yet it omits the workdir/path relationship, return format, and error semantics. For a tool with an ambiguous parameter pair, this is not sufficient.
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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not mention either one. Critically, it never explains the distinction between the required `workdir` and the optional `path` — the central ambiguity an agent needs resolved to call this correctly.
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 ('List') and resource ('directory entries'), plus the depth scope ('one level') and the sandbox boundary ('worker's authorized workdir parent tree'). It is distinguishable from the sibling worker_glob/worker_grep, but does not explicitly name the plain list_dir sibling it most resembles.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The implicit 'one level' hint suggests glob for recursion, but the agent must infer that rather than being told. There is no mention of prerequisites or the relationship to list_dir.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.