Fetch one public AgendaForge markdown document by an exact route or URL from the public docs index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | Yes | Exact route, canonical URL, or markdown URL present in the public docs index. |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that the document is public and that only one document is fetched by exact route, but it does not disclose behavior for unknown routes or whether the raw markdown body is returned.
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 states what is fetched, from where, and how the target is identified, with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 one-parameter, read-only fetch tool, the description plus schema covers the core call requirements: target identity, source index, and public access scope. It omits output structure and error behavior, but the low complexity and read-only annotations make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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 input schema fully documents the single route parameter at 100% coverage, specifying exact route, canonical URL, or markdown URL in the public docs index. The description essentially restates this and adds no further format, normalization, or encoding guidance, so it sits at the schema-coverage baseline.
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 names a precise action ('Fetch one public AgendaForge markdown document') and the exact selection method ('by an exact route or URL'), making it clear this is deterministic retrieval rather than search. It also scopes the operation to the public docs index, so there is no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.
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?
The description conveys a clear precondition: the caller must already know an exact route, canonical URL, or markdown URL from the public docs index. It does not explicitly direct the agent to use search_docs when the route is unknown, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
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.
fetch_doc and search_docs have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific document by route, the other searches across content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case formatting. The singular 'doc' versus plural 'docs' is a minor and natural variation that does not harm consistency.
With only two tools, the server sits at the thin end of the range. The scope is narrow enough to support this, but it still feels minimal compared to typical tool sets.
Fetching a known document and searching across docs cover the core workflows of a documentation server. A listing or index tool could be considered a minor gap, but search largely compensates.