list_documentation_pagesList every page in the Yappy documentation with its slug, title, and one-line summary, so you can pick the right one to read instead of guessing a slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_summaries | No | Include each page's one-line summary alongside its slug and title. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it states that the tool returns every page and specifies the returned fields (slug, title, one-line summary). No contradictions exist.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then explains the purpose with a clear rationale. Every word earns its place, and there is 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, read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is completely adequate. It names the output fields, explains why the tool exists, and the schema documents the parameter. No output schema is needed because the description already tells the agent what will be returned.
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 single parameter include_summaries is fully described in the schema with its default and meaning, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'one-line summary' but does not explain the include_summaries flag; however, the schema carries that burden. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 concrete verb ('List'), a specific resource ('every page in the Yappy documentation'), and the exact output fields (slug, title, one-line summary). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_documentation_page (fetch one page) and search_documentation (query pages), so an agent can correctly select it.
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 states the intended use case: to pick the right documentation page instead of guessing a slug. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_documentation or get_documentation_page, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction from the sibling names and this description.
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.
The three tools map cleanly to distinct actions: search finds relevant content, list gives an overview of all pages, and get fetches a specific page by slug. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions even prescribe how the tools chain together.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_documentation, list_documentation_pages, get_documentation_page. The slight variation between 'documentation' and 'documentation_pages' is natural since search also covers the FAQ.
Three tools is an appropriate size for a documentation server focused on reading and searching. Each tool earns its place, and none is redundant.
For a documentation MCP server, this surface is complete: search handles how-to and troubleshooting, list supports discovery when no slug is known, and get provides the full page when excerpts are insufficient. There are no dead ends or obvious missing operations.