Retrieves every document in the local corpus with its authority tier (1=contract/ledger, 2=CRM, 3=correspondence) so you can see which sources exist before verifying a claim.
List all documents in the local corpus with their authority tier (1 = contract/ledger, 2 = CRM, 3 = correspondence)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results carry an authority tier and defines the tier values (1=contract/ledger, 2=CRM, 3=correspondence), which is real domain context, but it says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, result size, or permissions.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the tier legend appended compactly. Nothing is wasted.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and partially what each result contains (authority tier). It is close to complete, though ordering/pagination and the exact shape of a 'document' entry remain unstated.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for. The authority-tier legend adds value about result content rather than input 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (all documents in the local corpus) with scope ('all' implies exhaustive, not filtered). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search, but 'all documents' conveys the enumerating nature of the tool.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating everything rather than searching, but the description never states when to prefer it over search, quote, or verify, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.