List documents and files in a Tealfabric directory to browse package contents and locate needed files.
List documents/files in a Tealfabric documents directory. Use for browsing package files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Directory path (e.g. packages/, or root if omitted) | |
| tenant_id | No | Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / tenant_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tenant ID (defaults to authenticated tenant)"New value: +"Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility."v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing is said about pagination, result limits, whether the listing is recursive, or what a missing path does. For a listing tool that could return unbounded results, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably slightly under-written rather than verbose, but structurally there is no waste.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter read tool with no nested objects, so a short description is defensible. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no picture of result shape, pagination, or ordering, and no disambiguation from the document-tree sibling.
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 schema's own description of `path` even explains the root default and gives an example. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'List documents/files in a Tealfabric documents directory.' An agent knows exactly what it returns at a high level. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby tealfabric_list_document_tree, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
'Use for browsing package files' gives a concrete context cue, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (list_document_tree for hierarchical traversal vs this flat directory listing). The agent must infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.