ionic-framework-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details about return types (code per framework, fenced blocks) and default behaviors (version, framework), without contradicting the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage context and return details. While moderately long, it avoids redundancy and every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (examples list or code per framework, fenced blocks, per-file sections). It also covers version and framework matching and points to the sibling get_doc_page for API reference, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 each parameter has a descriptive comment including defaults. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, primarily reiterating the example default and usage. It does not significantly deepen understanding of parameter semantics beyond what is already present.

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 reads official usage examples of an Ionic Framework component, specifying the action (read) and resource (usage examples). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting not to use it for API reference, which is handled by get_doc_page.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this before writing markup for a component') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use this for the component's API reference'). It also advises calling without an example first to list available examples, giving clear operational direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details such as ignoring anchors and returning the whole page, plus the version defaulting behavior, which goes beyond just safety.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it begins with the core action, then usage context, then details about page content and return value, and finally clear exclusions. It is concise but informative, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it mentions the returned fields (title, URL, version, markdown) and clearly scopes the tool to Ionic docs only. It also supplies enough guidance to avoid misuse.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, including examples for URL formats, the anchor caveat, version defaults, and matching to package.json. The main description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already covers.

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 reads a full documentation page from the official Ionic Framework docs, specifying the verb 'Read' and the resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it after search_docs and warning against using it for finding pages.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use after search_docs to read a page end-to-end before writing markup, and do not use it to find a page because it requires an exact URL. It also excludes Capacitor and external docs, making the intended usage unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns exactly 10 posts, orders them newest first, covers both Ionic Framework and Capacitor, and lists the returned fields. This is strong supplemental behavior disclosure for a simple read-only feed.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then gives usage boundaries and return fields. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with a sibling documentation search, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and the alternative. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists the 10 most recent official Ionic blog posts, newest first. It also distinguishes itself from documentation retrieval tools by naming the blog as a separate resource.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it — for news about releases, announcements, or deprecations — and when not to: for documentation questions, it directs the agent to search_docs. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the return shape (`tag`, `description`, `url`) and the default version behavior, giving an agent confidence about side effects and output expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, return format, and exclusions. A few phrases are slightly redundant (e.g., 'Use limit 100 to list every component' restates the schema), but overall every sentence adds useful context and nothing is unclear.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explicitly names the returned fields, explains the default version, gives a query example, and provides alternative tool routing. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results without additional context.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, and the description reinforces each: `limit` is tied to listing every component, `query` is illustrated with 'modal', and `version` is linked to matching the user's package.json. The parameter meanings are clear and actionable beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('UI components of Ionic Framework') and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly routing API reads to get_doc_page and Capacitor topics elsewhere. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('find the component that fits a piece of UI before building it by hand'), when-not-to-use guidance (API reads, Capacitor plugins), and practical tips like using limit 100 to list every component. Sibling alternatives are named directly, so an agent knows exactly when to choose this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the main behavioral traits (safety, non-destructive, open-world) are covered. The description adds the return format ('Returns the best matching page sections with title, url, snippet, section and version, plus the parentTitle and parentUrl') which provides some transparency about output structure, but does not detail internal search behavior, ranking, or error handling. Given the annotations cover safety semantics, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, but it is somewhat long due to the detailed list of covered topics and the three 'do not use' clauses. It front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance, and the clarifications are useful for disambiguating from siblings. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the enumeration of topics and exclusions, while valuable, could be seen as slightly verbose, though every sentence contributes meaning.

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 rich schema (4 parameters with full descriptions), clear annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and a descriptive output schema, the tool description fully equips an agent to decide when to use it, how to set parameters (including version matching guidance), and what to expect in the response. The description also differentiates from all sibling tools and alternative MCP servers, making the context 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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including examples for query ('modal dismiss' or 'dark mode css variables'), the meaning of section (e.g., 'components' for component reference), and the version instruction (match @ionic/core version). The description reinforces the query semantics ('Plain keywords work best; no search operators are supported') but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, 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: to search the official Ionic Framework documentation by keyword. It explicitly enumerates the topics covered (UI component properties, events, CSS custom properties, theming, layout, Angular/React/Vue integrations, navigation, routing, Ionic CLI, upgrading) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_doc_page, Capacitor MCP server, and Capawesome MCP server as alternatives for different use cases.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool first for any question about Ionic Framework itself, and provides clear 'do not use' conditions (for reading whole pages, for Capacitor core/plugins/native configuration, for Capawesome plugins/cloud services) with precise alternative tools (get_doc_page, Capacitor MCP, Capawesome MCP). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.