Standard Metrics MCP Server

list_documents

Retrieve a list of your firm's documents with optional filters by company, parse state, date range, and source for easy navigation.

Instructions

List all documents associated with your firm.

Args: company_id: Filter by company ID parse_state: Filter by document parse state from_date: Start date filter (inclusive) to_date: End date filter (inclusive) source: Filter by document source page: Page number for pagination (default: 1) per_page: Results per page (default: 100, max: 100)

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
`company_id`	No
`parse_state`	No
`from_date`	No
`to_date`	No
`source`	No
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination limits (though per_page max=100 is in schema), ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'List all documents' is misleading given pagination defaults.

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?

The description is concise with no extraneous information. It uses a clear 'Args' layout for parameters. However, it could be structured better by separating the main purpose from the argument list.

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?

The description lacks return value information, no output schema, and no behavioral details like default sorting or result structure. Given the number of parameters and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete for effective tool use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for properties, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each of the 7 parameters, including their purpose and defaults (e.g., page default 1, per_page default 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states 'List all documents associated with your firm', which clearly identifies the resource (documents) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_information_reports by focusing on documents. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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 lists filter parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_information_requests, list_notes). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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