Retrieves the list of local CSV or Parquet files available for analysis, allowing you to select data sources.
Get the list of files that are source of data
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_files_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a list of files, implying a read operation, but gives no details about potential issues like file exclusions, access controls, or response format. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure or additional context that could be included without significant bloat, hence not a 5.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to clarify what 'source of data' means or how the list is returned. For a straightforward listing tool, it meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps in understanding.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score applies. The description does not need to elaborate further on parameters.
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 ('Get list of files that are source of data'), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, the phrase 'source of data' is somewhat ambiguous, lacking precision about what types of files or sources are included. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'execute_polars_sql' and 'get_schema' by focusing on file listing.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or applicability. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.