mistral_list_library_documentsList the documents uploaded to a given document library. Management API: GET /v1/libraries/{library_id}/documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0-indexed). Default 0. | |
| search | No | Search documents by name. | |
| page_size | No | Documents per page (1-100). Default 100. | |
| library_id | Yes | The library id (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' aligns with that. The description adds the API endpoint but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or response format beyond what is obvious.
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 extremely concise: one sentence plus the API endpoint. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the key action.
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 the simplicity of the tool and the schema's parameter descriptions, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain the response format or any constraints beyond the API endpoint, which could be helpful for an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool lists documents in a given library, includes the API endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools like mistral_list_libraries and mistral_list_files by focusing on documents within a library.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use or not use the tool, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the usage is implied by the name and description, so it meets a minimum viable level.
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.