list_docsReturn the Wraps llms.txt index: every documentation page, product page, guide, and SDK reference with a one-line description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | URL the index was read from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "source": {
+ "description": "URL the index was read from.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output scope (a full index with one-line descriptions), but reveals no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, freshness, or pagination. With annotations present, this is an adequate but not enriched disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and output content without any filler. Every element earns its place.
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 (no parameters, read-only annotation, and an existing output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here.
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 ('Return') and identifies a precise resource ('the Wraps llms.txt index'), then enumerates its contents: documentation pages, product pages, guides, and SDK references. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc or search_docs, which target individual documents or search results.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving a complete index of all documentation, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like get_doc or search_docs, nor states when not to use this tool in favor of an alternative.
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.