List every file attached to a submission across all stages, with stage names such as review_file, copyedit, final, and body_text.
Fetch the list of files attached to a submission (all stages).
Every file has file_stage_name alongside the numeric stage
code, e.g. review_file, copyedit, final, body_text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| journal | No | ||
| submission | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns files across all stages and that each file includes a human-readable stage name, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the list is ordered, or whether any files are excluded by default.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and the second sentence adds a valuable detail about the output. No wasted words.
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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the key output nuance (file_stage_name) but omits any mention of pagination, ordering, or the meaning of the journal parameter, which an agent might need for correct invocation.
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 explains the meaning of the output's stage field but does not explain the parameters (submission, journal, limit) beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds no parameter-level semantics.
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 ('Fetch the list of files') and a clear resource ('attached to a submission'), and adds the useful scope 'all stages'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is distinct enough among the listed siblings.
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 description implies when to use it (when you need files attached to a submission) but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives. Among siblings, none obviously overlap, so the lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.