List project files, optionally filtered by extension and subdirectory. Provides organized access to project assets.
List project files, optionally filtered by extension
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extensions | No | Optional file extensions to filter by (e.g., [".gd", ".tscn"]). Include the dot. | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| subdirectory | No | Optional subdirectory to search in (e.g., "scripts/player") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about recursion behavior, traversal scope, hidden-file handling, or return format—important context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 eight-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the optional filter qualifier earns its place. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and routing detail.
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 list tool with a well-documented schema, the description is mostly adequate, but gaps remain: with no output schema, the agent is left guessing whether results are relative paths, absolute paths, or richer file objects, and recursion scope is unspecified. A sentence on return format and traversal would make it complete.
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%, with the schema already documenting all three parameters (including examples like '".gd", ".tscn"' and 'scripts/player'). The description's mention of extension filtering merely echoes the schema's extensions parameter without adding new semantic value, so 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List project files') and names the optional extension filter, making the core action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_projects, which could be confused for this tool at a glance, and it omits the subdirectory filter that the schema supports.
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 given for when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The large sibling set includes list_projects (list Godot projects) and read_file (read a specific file), but the description doesn't clarify the boundary or name any alternative, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.