List the signed-in user's uploaded medical documents (lab reports, findings) with type, date, provider and extraction status. Metadata only.
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": "vora_list_documents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating 'Metadata only' and surfacing 'extraction status', which signals an asynchronous extraction pipeline and warns the agent not to expect document text. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, 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?
Two sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a short constraint. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the fields returned and flagging metadata-only behavior. Minor gaps remain: whether results are paginated or capped, and what ordering to expect, which matter for an unbounded list call.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist rather than suggesting options the schema doesn't support, and adds nothing misleading about inputs.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ... uploaded medical documents') and even enumerates the returned fields (type, date, provider, extraction status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also scopes to the signed-in user. It doesn't name any sibling as an alternative, but no other vora_list_* tool covers documents, so the ambiguity risk is low.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Metadata only' tells the agent this is a lightweight index call, not a content fetch, and the signed-in-user scoping implies no filter arguments exist. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for retrieving actual document contents.
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.