get_file_infoRetrieve metadata for a file or directory, including permissions, owner, size, and timestamps. Use it to inspect Linux filesystem details for audits or changes.
Get file metadata: permissions, owner, size, timestamps (stat).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to file or directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful 'stat'-style behavioral framing, but says nothing about what happens on a nonexistent path, symlink resolution, or permission-denied cases.
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?
One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the concrete fields returned. No filler, though it is arguably terse enough to leave the reader wanting a bit more.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and against what input. The remaining omissions (error cases, symlink behavior) are minor for a simple stat-like operation.
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 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented as an absolute path to file or directory. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (file metadata) and enumerates the returned fields — permissions, owner, size, timestamps — which distinguishes it from content-oriented siblings like read_file and tail_file. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the metadata-vs-content boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (read_file, list_directory, get_system_info), and no stated prerequisites or error behavior. Usage is only implied by the word 'metadata'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.