read_docA Kennmarq.com documentation page as Markdown: the API reference, the guides, the SDKs and the laws pages. The index of every page, with one line each: https://kennmarq.com/llms.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The page's path, e.g. /docs/api/mark. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (Markdown) and offering an external index for enumeration, which the annotations do not provide. It does not describe error behavior for a missing page, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the return format is front-loaded ahead of the index pointer. The first sentence is a verbless fragment, which slightly reduces immediate clarity about the action being performed, but nothing is wasted.
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 single-parameter, fully enumerated read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned (Markdown), what content exists, and where to find the page list. The only gap is behavior on invalid or newly added paths, which the closed enum makes low-risk.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is a closed enum of 34 values with its own description and example, so the schema carries the burden. The description only loosely categorizes those paths (API reference, guides, SDKs, laws) and points at the index, adding modest orientation rather than new parameter semantics. Baseline 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 the exact resource (a Kennmarq.com documentation page) and the return format (Markdown), then scopes the content to API reference, guides, SDKs and laws pages so it is clearly a docs-fetching tool. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title 'Read a Kennmarq.com docs page', but the resource and domain distinguish it cleanly from get_integration and get_requirements.
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?
Usage is only implied: the presence of a page index at https://kennmarq.com/llms.txt hints at how an agent should discover or confirm valid paths, which is a useful aid. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any note about what to do when a path outside the enum is needed.
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.