list-documentsList documents. Returns active documents by default; pass "status" to include archived. Supports paging via "page" and "per_page".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number to retrieve (1-based). | |
| status | No | Filter by archive state. "active" (default) hides archived documents, "archived" returns only archived, "all" returns both. | active |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. Description adds behavioral context: returns active by default, supports paging, and status filter. No contradictions or hidden traits disclosed.
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 that are dense with information: default behavior, status filter, paging parameters. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality: defaults, filtering, paging. Missing details like sorting or error handling, but not critical for basic usage.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the default behavior of returning active documents and clarifying that 'status' is for filtering archive state, complementing the schema's enum descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states 'List documents' and distinguishes from siblings like 'get-document' (single document) and 'list-document-annotations'. It specifies default behavior (active documents) and key filters (status, paging).
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the 'status' and paging parameters, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context is sufficient for typical use.
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.