briq_docsRead briq's documentation: forks, stacks, sleep, keys and policy, cost, public and private URLs, regions, and every recipe. Without page, returns the index of every page with a one-line summary; then pass a page from it, e.g. "concepts/fork" or "cookbook/postgres".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page to read, e.g. "concepts/fork", "cookbook/postgres", or a link from the index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the no-argument call returns an index of all pages each with a one-line summary, which is a return-value contract. No pagination or rate-limit details, but that's a minor gap.
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?
One dense sentence pair: the resource and coverage are front-loaded, then the two-mode usage is stated with examples. No filler, no restating the title.
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-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, it covers both invocation modes and where valid page values come from. The only unstated detail is the response shape when reading a specific page (markdown text vs structured), which is a small but real gap.
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% and the single `page` param is documented in-schema. The description adds the semantics of *omitting* `page` (index mode) and how to obtain valid values (from the returned index), which the schema alone does not convey.
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 and resource ("Read briq's documentation") and enumerates the topical coverage (forks, stacks, sleep, keys/policy, cost, URLs, regions, recipes), which immediately distinguishes it from all the operational briq_* siblings. An agent can tell this is the doc-lookup tool without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit two-step workflow: call without `page` to get the index, then pass a page name from that index, with concrete examples ("concepts/fork", "cookbook/postgres"). It doesn't name any sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the read-docs-only usage is unambiguous.
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.