Retrieve all documents in your Deel organization, with optional filters by type, status, worker, or contract, plus pagination.
List all documents in the organization, with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by document type | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by document status | |
| worker_id | No | Filter by worker ID | |
| contract_id | No | Filter by 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. Beyond that the description only restates org-wide scope; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether it is unbounded, leaving whatever the agent needs about the response to the schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come first. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than waste, but nothing in the sentence is 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?
For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It still lacks sibling routing guidance and any note on paginated/aggregate results, which matters in a namespace crowded with other document-listing tools.
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% with all six parameters documented (type, status enum, worker_id, contract_id, limit, offset), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's generic 'optional filters' adds no syntax, allowed values, or defaults beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (documents) with an explicit org-wide scope, so the agent knows what it returns without opening the schema. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like get_contract_documents, list_required_documents, or list_document_templates.
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?
'with optional filters' hints that filtered listing is supported, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over get_document, get_contract_documents, or list_required_documents, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.