huly-mcp-selfhost

query_documents

Read-only

Read and filter Huly documents of any class with field-level control, so you can pull exactly the records and fields you need while secrets stay redacted.

Instructions

Read documents of any class (secrets redacted)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "className": "<className>"
    },
    "name": "query_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`query`	No	Field equality filter, e.g. {"space":"…"}
`fields`	No	Only these fields
`className`	Yes
`workspace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, and the description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: secrets are redacted in results. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination, default limits, result size, or whether an unscoped query is expensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler; it is efficient and readable. Brevity here tips into under-specification rather than waste, but the structure itself is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with a nested filter object and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It never explains what className expects, what limit's default of 20 implies, or how fields projection works, so an agent must reverse-engineer all of that from a 40%-covered schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Five parameters with only 40% schema description coverage leave limit, fields, workspace, and className substantially undocumented in structured form, and the description supplies no compensating meaning. The nested query object is described in the schema, but the description does not explain its equality-filter semantics or how it interacts with className.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Read documents of any class" gives a verb and a resource, so the action is identifiable, and "secrets redacted" hints at the read-only nature. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_documents, and "any class" sits oddly against a required className parameter, so the boundary is left for the agent to guess.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from sibling names alone whether to call query_documents or list_documents, and nothing here establishes the difference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server