Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-nexus

agent-nexus

by dugubuyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_documents

List all documents in a sub-project to access versioned Markdown content and enable agent coordination.

Instructions

List all documents belonging to the given sub-project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List all documents' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose permissions, error handling, pagination, or safety details. Minimal behavioral info beyond the action.

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?

One sentence of 9 words, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple operation (list documents) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return format), the description is largely complete. However, it lacks clarification on the 'sub-project' terminology versus the parameter name 'project_id', and does not mention how to obtain the ID. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description explains that project_id identifies the sub-project whose documents are listed, adding meaning beyond the schema (which only has type and required). With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates adequately for a single parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (List), resource (documents), and scope (belonging to a given sub-project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document (singular) and push_document (mutating). No tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (when you need all documents for a project), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites like how to obtain the project_id. Sibling names offer some context but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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