find_documentsList e-signing documents by title keywords or status to see send dates, each signer's progress, and who still needs to sign.
List documents with their status, when they were sent, each signer's status and who still has to sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | words from the title, e.g. "NDA" | |
| status | No | which documents | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| documents | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the shape of the result set (status, send time, signer states, who still must sign), which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it spends its words on return contents rather than on the filtering capability that distinguishes the tool.
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?
Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description needn't repeat them. The notable gap is that a tool named find_documents with a free-text query parameter never mentions searching or filtering, which an agent may miss when deciding whether to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions plus an enum on status, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the query parameter or how status interacts with it, which is the baseline 3 case rather than a failure.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List documents") and enumerates what each entry carries: status, send date, per-signer status, and outstanding signers. The plural "List" implicitly separates it from the singular sibling get_document, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (needs_attention for pending items, contact_documents for per-contact lookups, get_document for a single record). The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.