list_documentsRetrieve all knowledge-base documents with their IDs, titles, vendor, language, and page counts to identify manuals, schematics, drawings, procedures, and notes for waterjet support.
List all documents in the knowledge base (manuals, electrical schematics, drawings, procedures, notes) with their ids, titles, vendor, language and page counts.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation and it discloses the returned fields (ids, titles, vendor, language, page counts), which is useful. But it says nothing about result size for 'all documents' — no pagination, truncation, or volume warning — and no permission or auth requirements.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the document types and returned fields into a parenthetical. No wasted words and nothing important buried.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. What is missing is the scale/response-size behavior for an unfiltered 'all documents' listing and any hint of how this relates to the sibling list/search 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals the call needs no arguments and that filtering is unavailable at this level.
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 ('documents in the knowledge base') and even enumerates the document subtypes covered (manuals, schematics, drawings, procedures, notes), which tells an agent the scope is broad. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like list_procedures and list_drawings, so the boundary is left implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite three obvious siblings (list_procedures, list_drawings, search) that could plausibly be chosen instead. An agent must infer that this is the inventory/browse entry point rather than a targeted lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.