Lista Documentos (GED) (OData /Documents). Filtre com $filter/$top/$skip/$orderby/$expand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| $top | No | ||
| $skip | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $count | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $filter | No | ||
| $select | No | ||
| $orderby | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the OData endpoint and suggests query capabilities, but does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any system-specific constraints beyond that.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a compact filter-related usage hint. There is no filler or redundant content.
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?
Given no output schema and a fairly complex query surface, the description does not fully explain what the response contains, how pagination works, what $query means, or how this tool differs from the get-documents sibling. It is sufficient only for agents already deeply familiar with OData APIs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It only repeats a subset of parameter names ($filter, $top, $skip, $orderby, $expand) without explaining their meaning, and it completely omits semantics for the 'query', '$select', and '$count' parameters.
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 clearly states the action: 'Lista Documentos (GED)' and identifies the target resource and endpoint: 'OData /Documents'. It is specific enough to know this tool lists documents, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'legalone_get_documents'.
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 implied by the OData filter instruction: 'Filtre com $filter/$top/$skip/$orderby/$expand'. This gives some context for when to use the tool, but it does not explain when to prefer this over 'legalone_get_documents' or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.