list-documents-toolFind documents available to send for electronic signature. Use this to browse what documents the organization has ready to send.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter documents by name (partial match, case-insensitive). | |
| include_archived | No | Include archived documents in the results. Defaults to false. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documents | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / documents / items / properties / requires_signatureAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / documents / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "has_published_revision",
- "archived",
- "resource_uri",
- "app_url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "requires_signature",
+ "has_published_revision",
+ "archived",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "app_url"
+]Output schema / properties / documents / items / properties / default_attestation_type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "acknowledgment",
- "signature"
-]New value: +[
+ "signature",
+ "acknowledgment"
+]Output schema / properties / documents / items / properties / app_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / documents / items / properties / edit_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / documents / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "has_published_revision",
- "archived",
- "resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "has_published_revision",
+ "archived",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "app_url"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "documents": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "archived": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "auto_renew": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "default_attestation_type": {
+ "enum": [
+ "acknowledgment",
+ "signature"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "has_published_revision": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "latest_published_revision_pdf_uri": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "renewal_interval_days": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "has_published_revision",
+ "archived",
+ "resource_uri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "documents"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / include_archivedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Include archived documents in the results. Defaults to false.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral scope by indicating the listing is limited to documents the organization has 'ready to send,' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose further behavior such as pagination or default exclusions; with strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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?
Two short sentences carry the full message without redundancy. The main action and scope appear in the first sentence, and the second sentence reinforces the use case. No wasted 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?
For a simple list tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation profile, the description is nearly complete. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values. It could be slightly stronger with explicit sibling differentiation, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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%, so both parameters (name filter and include_archived) are already documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Find documents') and adds a clear domain ('available to send for electronic signature'), which distinguishes it from listing people, groups, or signing requests. The phrase 'ready to send' also implies a scoped subset rather than all documents, helping differentiate from broader search/query siblings.
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?
The description explicitly states the intended use: 'Use this to browse what documents the organization has ready to send.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not mention exclusions or name sibling alternatives like query-docs or search-docs that might overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.