list-docsShow the documentation tree (README, CHANGELOG, composer.json and every Markdown file under docs/) for one Laravilt package with document titles, or a compact tree for all packages when no package is given. The laravilt/laravilt meta package holds the main framework guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | No | Optional package name, e.g. "laravilt" (main docs), "panel" or "plugins". Omit to list every package. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact file set surfaced and the fact that output shape differs (titled tree vs compact tree) depending on whether a package is supplied.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded before the meta-package note. The first sentence is dense but every clause (file list, two output modes) carries information an agent needs.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, input semantics, and the content of both return variants. Nothing required to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds the key semantic distinction the schema only hints at — package given yields titles, omission yields a compact all-package tree. It also flags that laravilt/laravilt is the meta package holding the main guide.
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 — show the documentation tree for one package — and enumerates exactly what is included (README, CHANGELOG, composer.json, Markdown under docs/). This clearly separates it from siblings like list-packages, read-doc, and search-docs.
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 two modes are described (pass a package for a titled tree, omit it for a compact tree of all packages), which implies when to use each. But no sibling alternative is named or excluded — an agent must infer that read-doc is for content and search-docs for querying.
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.