List all ingested PDFs with metadata such as doc ID, filename, page count, chunk count, and ingest date to identify available documents for retrieval.
List all ingested PDF documents with their metadata.
Returns: List of documents with doc_id, filename, page count, chunk count, and ingest date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns metadata, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or what happens with no documents. The basic behavior is clear, but additional context like idempotence or safety is missing.
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 concise with two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed efficiently. No wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states what it lists and the key metadata fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to understand and call it.
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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics, and it appropriately omits them. No additional meaning is needed.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all ingested PDF documents with their metadata'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pdf_search (search) and pdf_delete (delete) by being a listing operation. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 context is clear: use when you need an overview of all available PDFs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent. Given the straightforward nature, a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.