List and filter saved web corpus entries by metadata: URL, domain, length, fetch time, search/citation counts, and CSL-JSON record.
Retrieve across the accumulated corpus by metadata: URL, domain, length, fetch time, how many searches surfaced the page, how many evidence entries cite it, and its CSL-JSON record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It does not say the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or capped, how they are ordered, or what happens with an empty corpus. It only states that retrieval happens.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of genuine information conveyed.
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?
An output schema exists, so enumerating returned fields (URL, domain, length, CSL-JSON) is redundant, while the actual gap, how the filter argument behaves, is left unaddressed. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage on the only parameter, the definition is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently.
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% for a nested 'filter' object (domain, min_len, cited_only) with defaults, so the description must compensate. Listing 'domain' and 'length' hints at two filter fields, but the filter semantics, default behavior, and the meaning of cited_only are never explained.
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 tool retrieves corpus entries and the description names the resource (accumulated corpus) and the available metadata axes. However, 'Retrieve ... by metadata' is ambiguous about whether metadata is the filter or the payload, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling corpus_search, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus corpus_search, grep, or read. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'list' in the name. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.