roki_get_doc_sectionReturn the complete text of one section of the integration guide, by number (e.g. "14"), sub-number ("12.1") or title fragment ("webhook").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Section number, sub-number, or a fragment of its title. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the matching modes (number, sub-number, title fragment) and the guarantee of returning the complete section text, which goes beyond 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then briefly lists the accepted reference formats. Every word earns its place 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?
This is a simple, read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially with the supporting annotations.
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%, and the description essentially repeats the same parameter semantics already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is structured.
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 the complete text of one section of the integration guide') and clearly specifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'complete text' and the various reference formats.
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 known section by number, sub-number, or title fragment, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is evident.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.
Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.
18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.