mcp-docs-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the return array structure and that failed pages include an error message rather than failing the whole batch. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description supplements rather than repeats them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, why it is better than the alternative, and the partial-failure behavior. No filler or redundant phrases.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: action, resource, upper limit, efficiency benefit, and return structure. Combined with the schema and annotations, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single 'urls' parameter, including its type, max/min items, format, and the constraint that all URLs must be mapbox.com. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the batch context.

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 fetches full content of multiple Mapbox documentation pages in a single call, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('multiple Mapbox documentation pages'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document_tool by highlighting batch efficiency.

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 provides clear usage context by naming get_document_tool as the alternative and explaining that this batch version is more efficient for multiple pages. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the comparison implies single-page calls should use get_document_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?

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already disclose the safety profile. The description does not contradict these and adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., 'full content'), but it does not discuss potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. Since annotations lower the burden, 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 two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core function immediately, then provides usage context and an alternative in the second sentence. Every word contributes value with no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., plain text, markup), but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.

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 fully documents the 'url' parameter with format, example, and constraint. The description only echoes 'by URL' and adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Fetch the full content of a specific Mapbox documentation page by URL." It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing get_latest_mapbox_docs_tool and batch_get_documents_tool, and the context signal for search_mapbox_docs_tool implies a different purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: "Use this after get_latest_mapbox_docs_tool to follow a link from the index" and "For fetching multiple pages at once, use batch_get_documents_tool instead." This clearly defines when to use and suggests an alternative, fulfilling the dimension well.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the broad scope of documentation sources and that results are ranked with titles, URLs, and descriptions. No contradiction with 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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes distinct information: what it searches, where it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed. No redundancy or 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 read-only search tool with only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the search scope, the return format (ranked results with titles, URLs, descriptions), and the logical next step (get_document_tool). Nothing essential 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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully described in the schema. The description adds context about natural-language/kewyord searching and the breadth of sources, but it does not provide additional syntax or parameter details beyond what the schema already offers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 and resource: 'Search Mapbox documentation', then enumerates the exact sources (API reference, GL JS, Help Center, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_document_tool by positioning this as the search/retrieval step and explicitly says to use get_document_tool to fetch full content.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (when searching docs by keyword or natural language) and explicitly points to get_document_tool as the alternative for fetching full content. It does not mention the sibling batch_get_documents_tool, but the guidance given is sufficient for the primary workflow.

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