list_documentsLists documents accessible to the authenticated account, providing an overview of available records for retrieval and verification.
List documents available to the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'available to the authenticated account,' which clarifies data scoping but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or result size. Given the annotations, this is a baseline score with minor added context.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action 'List documents' and immediately specifies the scope. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., full documents, metadata, pagination) to help an agent interpret the result. It only states that documents are listed, which is minimally functional but leaves gaps about the return format and potential filtering. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, a 3 is fair as it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters and is not missing anything, as there are none to document.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents') with a clear scope ('available to the authenticated account'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling get_document by being plural and general, making it obvious this tool returns a collection rather than a single item.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the seven siblings. It does not state whether to use this before get_document, or when to prefer verify_document_hash, etc. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.