Lista os documentos da base (id, nome, status, tamanho, nº de chunks).
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": "kb_list_documents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety bar is lower. It adds the specific output fields, but does not disclose any potential limits (e.g., pagination, sorting) or behavior when the optional account parameter is omitted. This is acceptable but not enriched.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that communicates the purpose and output fields without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and object, making it immediately scannable.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields but omits the meaning of the 'account' parameter, any pagination/limits, or ordering. It is minimally complete but lacks parameter context.
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 schema has one parameter 'account' with 0% description coverage little to no info in the description. The description mentions only the fields returned mud, not what 'account' does. This is a major gap for the agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.
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 states a specific verb ('Lista' / lists) and resource (documentos da base), and enumerates the returned fields (id, nome, status, tamanho, nº de chunks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_add_text or kb_get_document.
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 context is implied by the verb 'lists' — it's for listing all documents. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like kb_get_document (fetch one) or kb_search (search), nor does it mention the optional 'account' parameter's role (e.g., filtering by account).
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.