Fetch one documentation page as full markdown by its path (as returned by search_docs or list_docs).
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": {
"path": "<path>"
},
"name": "get_doc"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The doc path or URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('full markdown'), which tells the agent what it will get back, but says nothing about permission requirements, truncation/pagination on large pages, or error behavior for a bad path.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the qualifier about path provenance trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is missing.
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 no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it takes, and what it returns (full markdown). The only shortfall is the absence of any note on failure modes or size limits, which is minor for this complexity.
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 single 'path' parameter is documented in the schema as 'The doc path or URL'. The description reinforces the provenance of the value (from search_docs/list_docs) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), a specific resource (one documentation page), and a specific return format (full markdown) keyed on the path. The 'one page' scoping implicitly separates it from the list_docs/search_docs siblings, though it never names them as alternatives.
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?
Gives clear context for when to use it and where the argument comes from ('as returned by search_docs or list_docs'), establishing the retrieve-after-search workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do when the path is unknown.
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.