sbis-mcp

sbis_list_documents

List documents by type and period, with optional filters for date range, state, counterparty details, and direction.

Instructions

List documents by type and period (СБИС.СписокДокументов). docType required: Реализация, Корреспонденция, etc.

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": {
      "docType": "<docType>"
    },
    "name": "sbis_list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mask`	No	Маска по номеру/примечанию
`page`	No	Страница (0-based)
`limit`	No	Alias for pageSize
`state`	No	Состояние документа
`dateTo`	No	YYYY-MM-DD → ДатаПо
`docType`	Yes	Тип документа (Тип)
`dateFrom`	No	YYYY-MM-DD → ДатаС
`pageSize`	No	РазмерСтраницы 1–200
`direction`	No	Направление
`counterpartyInn`	No
`counterpartyKpp`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior beyond listing documents; missing pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence provides essential info about the required parameter. Some waste could be reduced by avoiding the Russian text in parentheses, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or how 'page' and 'limit' work. For a list tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is high (82%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that docType is required and giving example values ('Реализация, Корреспонденция, etc.'). It also implies period filtering via dateFrom/dateTo but does not elaborate on other parameters.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists documents by type and period, with docType required and examples. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'sbis_list_documents_by_event', which lists documents by event. A higher score would require explicit distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sbis_list_documents_by_event'. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server