outline_list_collection_documentsList the document tree of a collection by providing the collection ID, with optional limit and offset for pagination.
List the document tree of a collection. Args: id (collection id), limit, offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Collection id | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-100) | |
| offset | No | Results to skip, for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest amount of behavioral context by calling the result a 'document tree', but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or how deep the tree goes.
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?
Two short, front-loaded fragments with zero filler; the purpose sentence leads. The trailing args list is largely redundant with the schema but is brief enough not to be a real cost.
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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema, though, it should say more about the returned tree shape and how paging interacts with a hierarchical result, and it should disambiguate from the sibling list tools.
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 100%, so all three parameters (id, limit, offset) are already fully documented with types, defaults, bounds, and semantics. The description's 'Args:' line merely restates the parameter names, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (document tree of a collection), and the phrase 'document tree' usefully signals a hierarchical result rather than a flat list. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling outline_list_documents, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool to pick.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The overlap with outline_list_documents and outline_list_collections is exactly the case where routing guidance is needed, and none is given; the only implicit hint is the required collection id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.