list_documentsList documents in a collection, oldest first. Response shape: {collection, items: [{id, data, created_at, updated_at}], next_cursor}. Documents live under .data. Pass cursor to page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | The database URL returned at creation (or its bare s-... capability). | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page. | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name (created implicitly on first write). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses pagination behavior and response shape but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. As a list operation, it is generally safe, but lacks explicit behavioral context beyond pagination.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, response shape, and pagination instruction.
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 list operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers response shape and pagination. It does not explain behavior for non-existent collections or the db parameter beyond schema, but is largely sufficient.
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 75%; the description adds meaning for the cursor parameter ('Pass cursor to page') but does not explain db, collection, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. Minimal added value.
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 the tool lists documents in a collection, specifies the order (oldest first), and distinguishes from siblings like get_document and create_document by indicating a list operation with pagination.
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 implies pagination usage with 'Pass cursor to page' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_document for single documents or provide exclusion criteria.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that differentiate similar operations (e.g., create_database vs pro_create_database vs pro_attach_database). Agents can easily select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but 'database_status' is noun_verb. The 'pro_' prefix is consistently used for Pro account tools. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
16 tools cover the full lifecycle of temporary databases, document CRUD, collection management, and Pro account operations. Each tool is justified and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD for documents, database lifecycle (create, delete, extend, status), and full Pro account management (checkout, cancel, create, attach, list). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.