list_documentsRetrieve all open documents and their attributes, including name, label, file path, dirty state, active status, and object count, to track current working files in FreeCAD.
List all open documents: [{name, label, file_path, dirty, active, object_count}, ...].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by showing the exact list of returned fields and that it covers all open documents. Since there is no output schema, this field-level detail is especially valuable.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and output shape with no unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.
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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it defines what is listed and the exact object fields returned. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all open documents') and specifies the exact return shape with fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces, list_objects, and job_list.
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 phrase 'all open documents' gives clear context for when to call this tool: when an inventory of currently open documents is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.