List files and directories in a specified path to inspect directory contents or locate resources on a Linux desktop.
List files and directories within a target directory path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Target directory path (default: current directory). | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'list files and directories' without stating whether the listing is recursive, whether hidden files are included, whether metadata (size, type) is returned, or what the response format is. For a read operation, the agent gets no confirmation of safety or scope beyond the bare statement.
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 zero filler. Every word carries meaning, and the core purpose is stated immediately. Perfectly sized for a simple 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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify key listing behaviors like recursion and hidden-file handling. It is adequate for basic use but leaves important details unspecified that an agent would benefit from knowing.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter well (with default and meaning). The description adds minimal extra value by implying the path is where to list from, but does not go beyond the schema — the 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?
The description uses a specific verb (List) with a clear resource (files and directories) and scope (target directory path). It states what the tool does, but doesn't differentiate it from overlapping siblings like file_find or file_stat, leaving the agent to infer distinctions on its own.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file_find (for searching by pattern) or file_stat (for metadata of a single entry). No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints are given, so the agent must guess which tool fits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.