ncrypt_list_documentsList the documents in the owner's Ncrypt workspace with their share codes and view counts.
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": "ncrypt_list_documents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (share codes, view counts), which signals a read-only listing, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or auth requirements for a workspace listing.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned data with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what is returned (documents with share codes and view counts). It is largely sufficient, though pagination and ordering behavior remain unstated.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate; the description neither adds nor omits parameter guidance.
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 (List) and resource (documents) and scopes it to the owner's Ncrypt workspace, plus names the returned fields (share codes, view counts). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ncrypt_get_view_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.
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: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate documents in your workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on how this differs from ncrypt_get_view_analytics, which also surfaces view counts.
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.