list_documentsRetrieve recent documents, optionally filtered by status (sent, completed, declined, voided, expired), to review signing progress and document outcomes.
Your most recent documents, optionally filtered by status: sent, completed, declined, voided, expired (a sent document whose date has passed reads expired).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ownership scope ('your') and the implicit recency ordering, but says nothing about default page size, whether results are capped, or what fields come back. For a read-only list tool this is acceptable but 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?
A single well-formed sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the parameter detail in a subordinate clause. Nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the status filter adequately but leaves the limit parameter and any result-count or pagination behavior unexplained. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the volume of what it gets back.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for 'status', spelling out all five accepted values and clarifying the ambiguous 'expired' case. However, the 'limit' parameter (min 1, max 100, default unknown) is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 ('Your most recent documents') with an explicit scope qualifier ('your most recent'), so an agent knows this is an ownership-scoped listing operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_document or the other siblings, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by status' implies the intended use case, but the description never says when to reach for this tool over get_document or when a status filter is warranted. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.