list_documentsList the EDINET filings of a Japanese listed company by entity code. Returns documents with submission dates, period coverage, and XBRL/PDF availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of documents to return (1-100, default 20) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor from the previous response; send it with the same entity_code and limit to get the next page | |
| entity_code | Yes | EDINET entity code of the company, e.g. E02144 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Opaque next_cursor from the previous response; send it with the same entity_code and limit to get the next page",
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing what each result contains (submission dates, period coverage, XBRL/PDF availability). It omits ordering and pagination behavior, though the cursor/limit params cover paging.
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 tightly packed sentences: the operation and scope first, then the returned attributes. No filler or redundancy.
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 filtered-list tool with rich schema descriptions and safety annotations, the definition covers what is needed to call it correctly and what comes back. Minor omission of result ordering/default sort is not blocking.
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%, so entity_code format (E02144), limit bounds, and cursor semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by entity code, adding little beyond the structured fields.
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?
Concrete verb+resource: lists EDINET filings for a Japanese listed company by entity code, which distinguishes it from single-document siblings like get_document_summary and analyze_document. It stops short of explicitly saying why to call this instead of those siblings, keeping it at 4.
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?
Usage is only implied: the entity_code scoping and returned fields suggest it as a discovery step before per-document tools, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is stated.
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.