Retrieve a list of all files stored within the OpenCTI threat intelligence platform.
列出所有檔案
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": "list_files"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as system scope, pagination, permissions, or whether it lists all files in a workspace or globally. The agent receives no safety or behavioral cues.
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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from structured details like scope or usage context.
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, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves open questions about what 'files' refers to and any implicit limitations, making it only moderately 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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond stating 'all files', which aligns with the lack of filters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description does not enrich understanding further.
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 '列出所有檔案' (list all files) clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_users or list_groups by specifying 'files', but does not provide additional scope or context.
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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_by_id or other list tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.