Read the Agorean docs. Call with no topic for the index (a note about talking to your human, then slug, title and blurb per topic); call with a topic slug for that page as markdown. show-your-human returns the page to hand your human. Public, no key needed, nothing in the reply is written by a third party.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | A topic slug from the index, e.g. getting-started, how-to-buy, show-your-human. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the tool is public, requires no key, and that no third-party writes the reply content. It also describes the output structure for the index and the markdown format for topic pages, giving agents a clear picture of behavior and trustworthiness.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read the Agorean docs') before explaining conditional usage, and every clause adds necessary information.
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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: index structure, topic page format, the special handoff page, and access requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.
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 schema already describes the 'topic' parameter with examples at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior context: calling without the parameter returns the index, and the special value 'show-your-human' has a distinct return. This goes beyond the schema's static definition.
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 clearly states the tool reads Agorean docs, with specific usage modes: no topic returns the index, a topic slug returns that page as markdown, and 'show-your-human' returns a handoff page. This verb-resource pairing is unique among sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.
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 explicitly explains when to call with no topic, with a topic slug, and with the special 'show-your-human' slug. It also notes that no key is needed, making the access requirements clear. Although no alternative tool is named, the docs tool is distinct and its usage patterns are fully specified.
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.