Lists a Tealfabric documents directory as a tree so you can inspect folder structure and document hierarchy at a specified path and depth.
List a Tealfabric documents directory as a tree (action=tree).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory path | |
| max_depth | No | Tree depth (1–8, default 3) | |
| tenant_id | No | Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no confirmation this is read-only, no note that path defaults to some root, no mention that results are bounded by max_depth, and no explanation of the tree return shape. The tenant_id quirk (ignored by API) is only in the schema, not the description.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though the '(action=tree)' clause is vestigial noise rather than value.
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 simple read-only listing, the description plus schema cover the call mechanics adequately. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no information about what a 'tree' response looks like (nested nodes vs paths) or how depth truncation is represented.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented with defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'tree', meriting the baseline 3.
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 clear verb+resource: lists a documents directory as a tree. The '(action=tree)' parenthetical hints at scope but references an action parameter that does not exist in the schema, which adds slight noise. It is distinguishable from sibling tealfabric_list_documents only implicitly via 'as a tree'.
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 guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the closest sibling (tealfabric_list_documents) or to tealfabric_get_document_metadata. The only implied guidance is that you'd want a hierarchical view, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.