list_docsThe available documentation topics with one-line summaries. Call first, then get_doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | Every documentation topic this server can serve. | |
| note | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "docs": {
+ "description": "Every documentation topic this server can serve.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "topic": {
+ "description": "Pass this to get_doc",
+ "enum": [
+ "overview",
+ "quote-and-book",
+ "checkout",
+ "endpoints",
+ "widgets",
+ "attribution",
+ "live-chat",
+ "customer-portal",
+ "mcp-connector"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "topic",
+ "title",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "docs",
+ "note"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool returns topics with one-line summaries and that it is the initial step before fetching a document. This is meaningful beyond the structured annotations.
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 extremely concise: one sentence states the output, the second gives the usage sequence. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
With zero parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It also sets up the expected workflow with get_doc, making the context complete.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-free tool.
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 title and description clearly indicate that this tool lists available documentation topics with summaries. It distinguishes itself from get_doc by instructing the agent to call it first, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_docs. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Call first, then get_doc.' This tells the agent when to use the tool in relation to a sibling. However, it does not mention when search_docs might be preferred, so there is no comprehensive when-not 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.
Each tool clearly serves a distinct purpose: listing topics, searching docs, retrieving a topic, getting an integration brief, and fetching widget code snippets. There is no overlap; an agent can easily choose the right tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_docs, search_docs, get_doc, get_integration_brief, get_widget_snippets. The verbs (list, search, get) are standard and predictable.
Five tools is ideal for a documentation server, covering discovery (list, search) and retrieval (get) without excess. Each tool earns its place and the set is well-scoped.
The tool surface fully covers the domain: you can discover available topics, search across content, retrieve individual topics, and get specialized artifacts (briefs and snippets). There are no dead ends or missing necessary operations.