get_file_infoRetrieve metadata for a file or directory: size, timestamps, format, plus line count and revision for text files. Check details before reading or writing content.
Metadata for a file or directory: size, times, format, plus line count and rev for text files (the rev that writes in a strict zone ask for). Content: read_text_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context and hints at a 'rev' relevant to a strict-zone write workflow, but that note is too cryptic to be actionable and nothing else behavioral (errors, symlink handling) is disclosed.
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?
Compact, front-loaded single sentence that leads with what metadata is returned and ends with the sibling routing. The garbled parenthetical about 'strict zone' is the only wasted and confusing fragment.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (size, times, format, line count, rev), which is exactly the burden it must carry, and annotations cover safety. The one weakness is the missing path semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a one-param read tool.
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?
The single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning, and it only implies via 'file or directory' that path accepts both. No syntax, relative-vs-absolute, or allowed-root guidance is added, leaving the one required param under-specified.
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+resource ('Metadata for a file or directory') and enumerates returned fields (size, times, format, line count, rev), which cleanly distinguishes it from read_text_file, named explicitly for content. The cryptic parenthetical 'the rev that writes in a strict zone ask for' slightly muddies an otherwise clear purpose.
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?
It routes content reads to read_text_file ('Content: read_text_file'), which is real usage guidance pointing at an alternative. However, it gives no when-to-use vs the other metadata-adjacent siblings (list_directory_with_sizes, directory_tree) and no explicit exclusions beyond the content case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.