Skip to main content
Glama

ClickHelp Published Docs MCP Server

Get Child TOC Nodes

get_child_toc_nodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns flat list of children for a TOC node. TOC node IDs are unique within a project/publication scope. Works for both projects and publications (read-only).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "get_child_toc_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesParent node ID. TOC node IDs are unique within the project scope.
projectIdYesProject or publication identifier. Project IDs are unique across the portal.
isRecursiveNoInclude all descendants

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that it works for projects and publications and that it returns a flat list, but adds little beyond the annotations about ordering, pagination, or handling of recursive vs non-recursive results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the main action and scope front-loaded. There is no unnecessary repetition or padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the core return shape and scope. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying ordering or pagination, but no output schema exists and the essential behavior is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents nodeId, projectId, and isRecursive. The description reinforces the project/publication scope of projectId but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns a flat list of child TOC nodes for a parent node. 'Flat list of children' implicitly distinguishes it from tree-oriented siblings such as get_toc_tree, but it does not explicitly name or compare against any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a parent node ID and want its immediate children. It notes that it works for both projects and publications, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_toc_tree, find_toc_nodes, or get_toc_node.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources