List all documents (docs, word, notes, pages). Use this when asked to list, find, or search documents, notes, drafts, or written content. Supports pagination, sorting, and filtering by workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| server_id | No | Filter by server ID, or "personal" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists all documents and supports pagination, sorting, and filtering by workspace, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention side effects, return format, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List all documents'), and every sentence provides useful context. No redundancy or filler.
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 simple list tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what documents are included, when to use it, and key capabilities. It could be slightly more explicit about return behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the term 'workspace' as a semantic link to server_id and mentions pagination/sorting, but it does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents') with synonyms (docs, word, notes, pages) to clarify scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sheets or list_slides by naming the document resource type.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when asked to list, find, or search documents, notes, drafts, or written content.' It does not mention when-not or alternatives, but sibling tools cover other resource types, so the contextual guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: documents, sheets, slides, and servers. Even similar operations like update_sheet and update_sheet_tab are clearly separated by scope (workbook vs tab).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_document, delete_sheet_tab, list_slides), but there are minor deviations: 'append_to_document' vs 'append_rows'/'append_slides', and 'create_slide_presentation' vs 'list_slides' use inconsistent naming lengths and pluralization.
With 23 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range but reasonable for covering three full document-type lifecycles (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) plus server listing. No tool feels redundant.
The server provides create, read, update, delete, list, and append operations for documents, sheets, and presentations, including tab-level management for spreadsheets. Minor gaps exist like no individual slide update or search across all resource types, but the core workflows are well-covered.