List the Markdown files shared into a room (verified keys only).
Use when the user wants to see which documents were shared in a room.
Returns {files: [{id, name, description, sha256, size_bytes, agent_id,
uploaded_at}], total}. Each id identifies a file for fetch_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Room UUID or full room URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| total | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint ('verified keys only', i.e. unverified files are excluded), but it does not explain pagination, ordering, or what 'verified' means operationally.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the usage trigger, then the return shape. No filler sentences and nothing redundant.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields, and it still names the key envelope shape and the id-to-fetch_file link. It is essentially complete for a one-parameter, read-only listing tool, with only ordering/pagination behavior left unspecified.
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% and the single parameter (uuid, accepting a room UUID or full URL) is fully documented there. The description only implies the uuid is a room reference and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List the Markdown files shared into a room') with a narrowing scope ('verified keys only'). It is clearly distinguishable from list_rooms and fetch_file, and it even points at the follow-up tool ('Each id identifies a file for fetch_file').
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?
'Use when the user wants to see which documents were shared in a room' gives a clear triggering intent. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the context is unambiguous.
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.