Retrieve soft-deleted documents from trash with pagination, showing document metadata without content. Use to locate and manage discarded documents.
List documents in the trash (soft-deleted documents). Document content is left out, as in list_documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| page_size | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the documents are soft-deleted and document content is left out of the response. This meaningfully informs the caller beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parenthetical clarification plus the list_documents comparison are efficient and useful.
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 simple paginated list with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It references list_documents for output shape rather than fully describing the response, so it is not entirely self-contained.
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?
The schema fully documents both page and page_size parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 documents in the trash (soft-deleted documents).' The scope is clear and distinguishes it from list_documents and destructive trash tools like empty_trash and restore_from_trash.
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 intended use is clear: call this when listing soft-deleted documents, and the content-omission note aligns it with list_documents. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the selection context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.