get_doc_settingsGet a documentation's settings: version numbering scheme, whether publishing needs approval and who may give it, the default code languages of the samples, and how schema names are displayed. Also returns the rowVersion that update_doc_settings takes. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentationId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the documentation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description uses 'Get' and 'returns', confirming no side effects. The prerequisite of project context is disclosed. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence that lists all the relevant settings returned without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the important rowVersion note efficiently.
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?
The description sufficiently explains what the tool does and includes a prerequisite (project context). It lists the settings returned, giving enough information for an agent to decide when to call it. It doesn't mention output format or error cases, but given the simple nature of a getter, it is adequately complete.
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 only parameter, documentationId, is described in the schema as 'The public Id (Guid) of the documentation', providing complete coverage. The description does not add additional details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving documentation settings, and enumerates the specific settings returned. It distinguishes itself from other get_* tools by focusing on documentation settings rather than pages, snippets, or tree.
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 notes that project context is required, which is a necessary prerequisite for invocation. It also mentions the rowVersion returned is used by update_doc_settings, giving contextual guidance on when this read operation is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the specific scope is clear enough.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.