Fetch a full StitchAPI documentation page as Markdown — the "read the whole thing" escape hatch for a search_docs hit. Pass a url (as returned by search_docs) or a slug like "guides/resilience/throttle".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Page URL from search_docs (absolute or /docs/…). | |
| slug | No | Page slug, e.g. "guides/resilience/throttle". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown) and the use case, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what happens if both `url` and `slug` are provided, or any error behavior. For a fetch operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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, front-loaded with the core action and output format, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, input options, output format, and relationship to the sibling tool. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases like providing both parameters or neither, but the core usage is fully explained.
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 schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `url` should come from `search_docs` and giving a concrete `slug` example, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and defines the resource as 'a full StitchAPI documentation page as Markdown'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool `search_docs` by calling it the 'escape hatch' for a search hit, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 says to use this tool when you need to 'read the whole thing' after a `search_docs` hit, which is clear situational guidance. It also specifies how to pass input (`url` from `search_docs` or a `slug`), effectively distinguishing it from the search tool.
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 two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_docs finds relevant sections, while get_doc retrieves full pages. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly frame get_doc as a follow-up to search_docs.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: search_docs and get_doc. The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action and subject.
With only 2 tools, this is on the low end, but for a documentation server the scope is narrow and the pair is sufficient. Slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but the simplicity is appropriate for the purpose.
The core workflow of searching and then reading a full page is fully covered. Minor gaps exist, such as listing all documentation pages or browsing by category, but these are not essential for the stated purpose of documentation access.
