get_doc_treeGet the documentation tree (folders, pages, spec snapshots) for a specific version. Returns a hierarchical structure with sort order. Each node is typed as page, folder, or specSnapshot. Requires project context (call set_context first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| versionId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the doc version | |
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. It adds useful behavioral details about the returned structure (sort order, node types), going beyond the annotation without overpromising side effects.
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 two sentences, direct, and free of redundant wording. It packs essential information about the output and prerequisite without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return type (hierarchical structure), the ordering behavior, and the node types. It also notes the required project context. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but such details are often not expected in a tool description, so completeness is strong.
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?
Both parameters are described in the input schema with clear explanations of being the public ID (Guid) for the documentation and version. Since schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are required and well-defined, the description adds limited extra meaning, matching the baseline of 3.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('documentation tree'), and the scope ('for a specific version'). It also details the response shape (hierarchical structure, sort order) and node types, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 mentions the prerequisite of calling set_context first, which is important operational guidance. It does not contrast this tool with sibling tools like list_folders or get_doc_page, but the specific wording about retrieving a full tree for a version is sufficient for most use cases.
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.