intakeq-mcp

list_files

Get client file metadata with a mandatory client ID. Returns references for file name, size, content type, and creation date without downloading files.

Instructions

List file metadata for a client. Returns references only (Id, FileName, DateCreated, Size, ContentType, FolderId). Files are never downloaded — this tool returns metadata references only. clientId is mandatory.

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clientId`	Yes	Client ID (mandatory — the IntakeQ files API requires this)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns only references, never downloads files, and requires clientId. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could mention pagination or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the tool's purpose and key constraints.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the no-download behavior, making it fairly complete. It could add details on pagination or limits, but these are not critical for a straightforward metadata list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes clientId as mandatory and required, and the description repeats this without adding new details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not enrich parameter meaning further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'List file metadata for a client' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it returns references only (Id, FileName, etc.) and never downloads files, making its scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating it lists file metadata for a client and requires clientId. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on metadata references and no-download behavior provides clear context. Lacks explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, so not a 5.

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