Retrieve all documents associated with a contract by providing its contract ID. Supports pagination with limit and offset.
Retrieve all documents associated with a contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit | |
| offset | No | Offset | |
| contract_id | Yes | The contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description confirms it's a read operation retrieving all documents. It adds nothing beyond the annotation and the name about pagination behavior or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded immediately.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. However, it lacks pagination details (limit/offset behavior) and doesn't clarify how results are sorted or what fields are returned, which could matter given there's no output schema.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters including limit, offset, and contract_id. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or semantics. Baseline 3 is correct.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve all documents associated with a contract.' The scope is well-defined. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling list_documents or get_document, which likely serve related purposes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_documents or get_document. An agent has no information about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.