Skip to main content
Glama

list_directory

View directory contents to analyze codebase structure for architectural decision records.

Instructions

List contents of a directory

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the directory to list

Implementation Reference

  • Input/output schema definition for the list_directory tool arguments.
    export interface ListDirectoryArgs {
      directoryPath: string;
      recursive?: boolean;
    }
  • Tool registration and metadata in the central TOOL_CATALOG, including input schema, description, category, and related tools.
    TOOL_CATALOG.set('list_directory', {
      name: 'list_directory',
      shortDescription: 'List directory contents',
      fullDescription: 'Lists files and directories in a path.',
      category: 'file-system',
      complexity: 'simple',
      tokenCost: { min: 100, max: 500 },
      hasCEMCPDirective: true, // Phase 4.3: Simple tool - directory listing
      relatedTools: ['read_directory', 'read_file'],
      keywords: ['directory', 'list', 'files'],
      requiresAI: false,
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          path: { type: 'string', description: 'Path to directory' },
        },
        required: ['path'],
      },
    });
  • Lists the list_directory tool in the server context generator for LLM awareness under File System Operations.
    { name: 'list_directory', description: 'List directory contents with filtering' },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List contents' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's recursive or flat listing, what format the output takes, error conditions, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple directory listing tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the directory listing returns, what happens with invalid paths, whether it follows symlinks, or any other behavioral aspects. Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but the schema already does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List contents of a directory' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('contents of a directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_directory' or 'list_roots', which appear to be related directory operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'read_directory' and 'list_roots' that likely handle similar directory operations, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server