docuseal-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination but doesn't describe how pagination works (e.g., cursor-based with 'after'/'before'), default limit, or sorting. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies reading).

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?

The description is extremely concise—just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and supported filters. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of objects with fields), pagination mechanics, error conditions, or provide examples. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values, which it doesn't.

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 must compensate. It lists 7 parameters (status, template_id, q, archived, after, before, limit) but misses 2 from the schema (slug, template_folder). For the listed parameters, it provides no semantic context about what they filter (e.g., 'q' for search query, 'after'/'before' for pagination). This adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'submissions', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_submission' (singular retrieval) and 'create_submission' (creation). However, it doesn't specify what kind of submissions (e.g., form submissions, document submissions), leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_submission' (for single submission) or 'list_submitters' (for related entities). It mentions pagination and filters but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what the default behavior is without parameters.

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