List documents in the household, optionally filtered to a single document type. Soft-deleted documents are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentType | No | Return only this type. Omit for all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / documentType / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional filter to only return documents of this type. Omit to return documents of all types."New value: +"Return only this type. Omit for all."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {},
+ {
+ "documentType": "Passport"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / documentType / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional filter to only return documents of this type. Omit to return documents of all types."Input schema / properties / documentType / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "Passport"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that soft-deleted documents are excluded, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.
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 two succinct sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and a behavioral note. Every sentence contributes value.
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 operation with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: scope, filtering behavior, and soft-delete exclusion. Nothing critical is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter documentType is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of filtering by document type adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('List documents'), a resource ('documents in the household'), and an optional filter ('filtered to a single document type'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling list_* tools because of the 'household' scope and document-specific resource.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list documents in the household, and the optional filter parameter is explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no other list-documents tool exists among siblings, so the usage context is sufficient.
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.