docs_getRead one documentation page in full, by the slug returned from docs.search.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "docs_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the whole page is returned and that the slug originates from search, but says nothing about response size, truncation, or error behavior for invalid slugs.
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 sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the parameter provenance. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow and parameter origin. Only minor gaps remain, such as the shape of the returned page content.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does explain the origin of slug (returned from docs_search) and that a single page is addressed, but omits the enforced 1–120 character constraint or format details already implied by the 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?
"Read one documentation page in full" gives a specific verb (read), resource (documentation page) and scope (one, in full). It also implicitly separates itself from docs_search by naming that tool as the source of the slug, though the name is written as "docs.search" rather than the actual sibling identifier.
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 supplies a clear prerequisite workflow: call docs_search first, then pass one of its returned slugs here. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer files_read instead), which keeps it just short of a 5.
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.