List documents stored in the database for the caller.
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_database_documents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| file_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond caller scoping. It omits result ordering, pagination behavior, the default limit of 100, and whether truncation occurs — all critical for a list operation.
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?
A single clean, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is undersized rather than appropriately sized for a two-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema.
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 zero annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description should explain result shape and filtering. It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict what a call returns or how to constrain it.
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 0% and the description mentions neither 'limit' nor 'file_type'. The meaning of file_type (extension, MIME type, category?) and the effect of limit (page size vs total cap) are left entirely undefined.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List documents stored in the database') with caller scoping, which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_database_document (single fetch) and store_document (write). However, it never explicitly contrasts with siblings or mentions filtering capability.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_database_document/read_document, no prerequisites, and no note on how to page through results. The agent must infer everything about appropriate invocation conditions.
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.