Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ossian-mcp

ossian-mcp

by dockndevai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List documents

list_documents
Read-onlyIdempotent

List available documents with their ingestion status to see what the system can answer from or verify that an upload finished processing.

Instructions

List the documents available to answer from, with their ingestion status. Use this to tell the user what the system actually knows about, or to check whether something they uploaded has finished processing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoRestrict to one namespace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that documents carry an ingestion/processing state, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, volume, or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states what is returned, the second front-loads the use cases. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return concept (ingestion status) and usage intent, and annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or result ordering for large document sets.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'namespace' parameter is already documented as 'Restrict to one namespace.' The description adds no further meaning to it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (documents) and adds scope ('available to answer from, with their ingestion status'). An agent can distinguish this from ask_documents (querying) and recall, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete contexts for use: telling the user what the system knows about, and checking whether an upload finished processing. It does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of the top band.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools