list_documentationList all available Playbook documentation topics. Returns a catalog of guides and references. Use the topic slug with read_documentation to read the full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "context"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by describing the return content ('catalog of guides and references') and how the returned slug is consumed, though it says nothing about pagination or output format specifics.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return, then the follow-up workflow. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 zero-param, read-only catalog tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, and downstream usage, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly richer on the shape of the returned catalog, but no critical gap remains.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema-side burden is nil and the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and it correctly implies no arguments are required.
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+resource ('List all available Playbook documentation topics') and clarifies the output is a catalog of guides and references. This lets an agent distinguish it from read_documentation, which reads a single topic's full content.
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 routes the agent: use the topic slug here with read_documentation to get full content, establishing the list-then-read workflow and naming the relevant sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool, so it's clear context rather than a complete when/when-not rule.
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.