List indexed documentation projects. Use this first to discover what's available. Supports a forgiving fuzzy query over slugs (ranked by relevance) plus limit and skip for pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of results to skip, for pagination (default 0). | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default 50, max 200). | |
| query | No | Forgiving fuzzy filter over project slugs; results are ranked by relevance. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Maximum number of results to return (default 50, max 200).",
+ "format": "uint",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Forgiving fuzzy filter over project slugs; results are ranked by relevance.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / skipAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Number of results to skip, for pagination (default 0).",
+ "format": "uint",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's focus on fuzzy query and pagination adds useful behavior detail without contradicting annotations. It doesn't cover all traits (e.g., rate limits), but it's sufficient for this simple, read-only tool.
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 only two sentences, both front-loaded with essential info: purpose first, then usage and features. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.
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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior adequately. Missing details like default pagination behavior are already in the schema, so no critical gap.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description essentially restates schema info: 'forgiving fuzzy `query` over slugs' and pagination. It adds minimal insight beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's action: 'List indexed documentation projects.' It also offers a usage hint ('Use this first to discover what's available'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_versions and search_docs, ensuring no confusion.
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 advises 'Use this first to discover what's available', implying it's a starting point. It also explains query and pagination support. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
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: listing projects, listing versions, resolving documentation URLs, and semantic search. No overlap exists.
All tools follow a consistent verb_plural pattern (list_projects, list_versions, resolve_docs, search_docs), making them predictable.
With 4 tools covering project discovery, version exploration, artifact retrieval, and search, the count is well-scoped for a documentation server.
The tool surface covers the main read-only operations for documentation projects. A minor gap is the lack of project metadata retrieval beyond versions, but it is sufficient for most use cases.