air_list_documentsList document sources for a project and poll until their status is connected before you start an assessment. Requires projects:read.
List document sources for a project. Poll until status is connected before starting an assessment. Requires projects:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPid | Yes | Project pid | |
| includeArchived | No | Include archived document sources |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds the authorization requirement (projects:read) and the polling/status-contract behavior, which the annotations do not convey.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, the timing/status precondition, and the permission requirement. Front-loaded with the action and scope.
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 small read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and covering annotations, this is nearly complete. Minor gap: no output/pagination hints, though no output schema exists to defer to.
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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents projectPid and includeArchived. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 and resource with scope ('List document sources for a project'), which an agent can distinguish from sibling list tools like air_list_projects, air_list_domains, and air_list_artifacts. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternatives, but the resource noun is specific enough to route correctly.
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?
Gives real operational guidance: poll until status is 'connected' before starting an assessment, and the required scope 'projects:read'. It tells the agent the pre-condition and timing, though it does not name an alternative tool for the same data if this one is unavailable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.