Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lilbee

lilbee

by tobocop2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_documents

Retrieve documents with chunk counts in pages, using limit and offset to browse large collections.

Instructions

List documents and chunk counts, paged (limit 1-1000).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.3
  3. Removedv1.0.2
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the pagination model and the limit range (1-1000), implying a safe read operation, but says nothing about offset behavior, default limits, or what the page envelope looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and pagination constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than merely concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the read-only list nature is simple. However, with low parameter coverage and no annotations, the missing offset semantics and default paging behavior leave a real 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for both parameters. It does constrain limit to 1-1000, adding real meaning, but offset is left completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (documents), and adds that chunk counts are returned along with pagination. It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings like add, remove, and search, but does not explicitly contrast itself with any near-neighbor.

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?

Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or catalog_browse, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools