list-document-sessionsList viewing sessions for a document with per-session metrics. Supports paging via "page" and "per_page".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number to retrieve (1-based). | |
| doc_id | Yes | The public id of the document whose sessions to list. | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It mentions metrics and paging, but does not detail what metrics are included, whether sessions are active/historical, or any other behavioral traits.
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 short, clear sentences. No wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and includes essential paging detail.
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 no output schema and a simple list operation, the description covers the core functionality (listing sessions with metrics and paging). It could mention whether sessions are filterable by date or status, but overall adequate for a list-resource tool with good annotations.
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% with descriptions for all three parameters (page, doc_id, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is already clear. 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 the tool lists viewing sessions for a document with per-session metrics and supports paging. This distinguishes it from other list tools like list-documents (which lists documents) and list-document-links (which lists shareable links).
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 usage for listing sessions with paging, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-document-session or list-document-annotations. No exclusions or context are given.
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 (document management, PDF manipulation, automation, analytics, etc.) with clear boundaries, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tool names follow a strict lowercase-with-hyphens pattern and use consistent verb-noun phrasing (e.g., 'create-document', 'list-documents', 'add-pdf-security'), ensuring predictability.
At 45 tools, the server far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the coverage is comprehensive, the high number may overwhelm agents and suggests insufficient consolidation.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of documents and PDFs—creation, retrieval, update, deletion, archiving, security, OCR, splitting, merging, automation, analytics, and more—with no obvious gaps.