DocuSky MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_corpora

Lists corpora inside a specified DocuSky database with document counts, covering open and user collections plus optional friend-shared databases.

Instructions

List the corpora inside one database, with document counts.

Args: db: Database title, exactly as returned by list_databases. target: "OPEN" or "USER". include_friend_db: Include databases shared by friends (USER only).

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": {
      "db": "<db>"
    },
    "name": "list_corpora"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`db`	Yes
`target`	No	OPEN
`include_friend_db`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read and it discloses the conditional constraint that include_friend_db applies only to USER target, but it says nothing about authorization needs, scope of returned data, or pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One summary sentence plus a compact Args block; front-loaded with the operation and scope and nothing redundant. The structure is efficient though not especially polished.

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 an output schema exists, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers all three parameters and their interplay. The only material gap is sibling routing and any environment/auth preconditions.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the accepted values for 'target' (OPEN/USER), explains include_friend_db's effect and its USER-only restriction, and defines 'db' precisely. It does not restate the schema defaults, which is fine.

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 (corpora) and scopes it to 'inside one database, with document counts', which separates it from list_databases at the parent level. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the prerequisite that 'db' must be 'exactly as returned by list_databases', which tells the agent the correct call ordering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against siblings like search_documents or list_databases.

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

Deploy Server