contentsWhere a page is in the documentation, and what is around it: the folder it is in, the pages next to it (for a property, the class's other properties) or the pages it contains. Without an id, the top of the contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | A page id (from search, lookup_api or fetch), a folder id from an earlier contents call, or a page URL. Leave out for the top. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the shape of the response: parent folder, adjacent pages, contained pages, and the special-case sibling semantics for properties. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits truncation/pagination behavior for large folders.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core concept and ending with the default behavior. Slightly dense with parenthetical nesting, but no wasted clauses.
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-parameter read-only navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers enough of the returned structure to call it correctly. Only edge cases like missing pages or very large listings are unaddressed.
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 description's id semantics (page id, folder id, URL, omit for top) largely duplicate the schema's own parameter description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the explanatory work.
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 states a concrete verb (browse/relate) and resource (documentation pages), and explains the operation semantically: a page's location plus its folder, siblings, and children. The bare name 'contents' is ambiguous, but the description resolves it into a navigation/tree tool that is distinguishable from search and fetch.
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?
It gives one conditional behavior ('Without an id, the top of the contents') and the schema notes ids can come from search, lookup_api or fetch, implying a navigation workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over fetch or search, nor what to do if a page isn't found.
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.