list_documentsList the documents published with this API key, newest first, with their share links and view counts. Use it to find a document the user published earlier so it can be updated or re-sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'with this API key' scoping, 'newest first' ordering, and that share links and view counts are included. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.
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, no filler. The first sentence states the action and return value; the second gives a practical use case. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description tells the user what will be returned: share links and view counts, sorted newest first. It covers the essential behavior for a simple list tool, though it omits possible pagination or limit 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies; the description is clear that the operation is parameterless and focused on listing.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('documents published with this API key'), and details on ordering and returned fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_document (single document) and publish/update (mutations).
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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use it to find a document the user published earlier so it can be updated or re-sent.' This clearly implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: list, publish, or update documents. There is no overlap in purpose, making it clear which tool to select for a given action.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern (list_documents, publish_document, update_document), providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With only 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but well-scoped for a document publishing service. Each tool is essential and covers the core workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the primary lifecycle of publishing, updating, and listing documents. A delete operation is missing, but it is not critical for the server's apparent purpose, and the existing tools handle common use cases without dead ends.