list_uploadsRetrieve files uploaded through the upload panel in the past hour, including upload_id values, to identify recent uploads and reference them in bookkeeping tasks.
Files uploaded through the upload panel in the last hour, with their upload_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that results are capped to the last hour and that each item carries an upload_id, which enables chaining to upload_stage. It says nothing about ordering or truncation behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys resource, source channel, time window and a key returned field with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: the time-window constraint is the one behavior an agent could not learn elsewhere. It leaves the concept of 'upload panel' undefined, which is the remaining ambiguity.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of upload_id pertains to the result shape 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?
Names the resource (files uploaded), the scope (through the upload panel, last hour) and one returned field (upload_id), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from a general document listing. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and does not name a sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Aside from the 'last hour' scope hint, it offers no guidance on when to call this versus list_missing_documents or upload_stage, nor any prerequisite (e.g. requiring a connected session via connect_wint). The agent must infer usage 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.