List Onshape documents with optional filters for ownership or creation and sorting by name or date.
List documents in your Onshape account with optional filtering and sorting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of documents to return | |
| sortBy | No | Sort field | modifiedAt |
| sortOrder | No | Sort order | desc |
| filterType | No | Filter documents by type | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation and the description mentions optional filtering and sorting, but it does not disclose whether the result includes shared documents, how pagination works with the limit parameter, or what the return structure looks like. It is not misleading, but it is thin.
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, efficient sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and it earns its place by adding the filtering/sorting qualifier.
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 is simple, all four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and this is a read-oriented list operation. However, with no output schema and no mention of pagination, default limit behavior, or how results are scoped to 'your account', the description is only minimally complete for a tool an agent must invoke reliably.
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%, with each parameter having a name, type, enum or default, and description. The tool description only adds high-level 'optional filtering and sorting' language and no extra detail beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List documents' in your Onshape account, with optional filtering and sorting. It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes from create/get/delete tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_documents, which may also return document listings.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_documents, get_document, or get_document_summary. The description implies a broad listing use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.