filesystem.list_directoryLists files and directories inside the ToolHub workspace, helping coding agents inspect project contents before reading or editing files.
List files and directories inside the ToolHub workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| entries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that listing is confined to the ToolHub workspace (a sandboxing detail), but says nothing about recursion, hidden files, or result limits.
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 no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented path parameter, but it wastes no words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the path parameter's semantics and any usage context are absent, leaving an agent to guess at basic invocation details.
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?
One parameter ('path') with 0% schema description coverage; the only hint is the default '.'. The description never mentions the path argument, so it adds no meaning about what path selects or whether it is relative to the workspace root.
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 ('List') and resource ('files and directories') scoped to the ToolHub workspace, which is more precise than a bare 'list'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like filesystem.read_file or shell.run, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no indication of when to prefer this over shell.run or read_file. The only implied context is that it operates on the workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.