List document IDs in a Mendeley folder, then use the returned cursor to page through results and match IDs to titles in your group or library.
List document IDs assigned to a Mendeley folder. The folder endpoint supplies IDs only; match them with group or library listings for titles. Pass nextCursor to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| folderId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint already declares the operation safe and non-destructive, but the description adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing the return shape (folder endpoint supplies IDs only, not titles) and that pagination continues via nextCursor. It still omits whether a folder must exist or what happens with an invalid folderId.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then data-shape caveat, then pagination. Minor cost: the parameter-name mismatch introduces ambiguity rather than clarity.
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?
No output schema, so explaining that only IDs are returned is genuinely useful, and pagination is covered. But for a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage, omission of limit semantics and folderId requirements leaves the definition short of complete.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters, yet it only addresses pagination and does so with the wrong name: 'nextCursor' versus the schema's 'cursor'. Neither limit nor folderId (the required UUID) is explained.
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?
Clear verb+resource: list document IDs for a Mendeley folder. It implicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like campus_mendeley_list_group_documents by naming the folder scope, but never explicitly contrasts them.
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?
It gestures at workflow ('match them with group or library listings for titles') and pagination, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling list tools (list_folders, list_group_documents) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.