QC Database MCP Server

list_documents

List documents in the current project with optional filters by folder, status, or search term.

Instructions

List uploaded documents in the current project. Optionally filter by a document folder id, status (uploading/processing/extracting/ready/error), or a search term.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder_id`	No
`status`	No
`search`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, sorting, permission requirements, or what happens when no documents are found. The lack of such details reduces transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and optional filters are listed succinctly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filters. It lacks pagination details but is adequate for a simple list tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'folder_id' is a document folder id, 'status' can be 'uploading/processing/extracting/ready/error', and 'search' is a search term. However, it does not specify format or behavior beyond the status enum.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the action ('list'), resource ('documents'), and scope ('current project'), with optional filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_document' (single document) and 'attach_photo' (image-specific).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description: use for listing documents with optional filters. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor mention of alternatives like 'get_document' for a specific document.

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