list_attachmentsLists files uploaded to a page by page ID, slug, or URL, with pagination for retrieving more attachments.
List the files uploaded to a page (Docmost 0.96 or newer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | Page id, slug id or Docmost page URL. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. | |
| cursor | No | Value of next_cursor from a previous call, to get more items. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the version requirement, which is genuine behavioral context (the tool may fail on older servers), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or empty results.
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 zero waste; the resource and scope come first and the version caveat is appended compactly. For a simple paginated list tool this is the right size.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description needn't explain return values. It is still thin on how to iterate pages and how this relates to get_attachment/upload_attachment, leaving an agent to infer the listing workflow.
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% – page accepts id/slug/URL, limit is bounded 1-100 with default 50, and cursor is explained as next_cursor from a prior call. The description adds nothing beyond this, so it sits at the baseline rather than exceeding it.
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 ("List the files uploaded to a page"), which cleanly separates it from get_attachment (single-file fetch) and upload_attachment. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The parenthetical "(Docmost 0.96 or newer)" is a useful prerequisite/version gate, implying when the tool is available. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_attachment, or on how to page through results with limit/cursor beyond what the schema states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.