Read-only index of the public documentation and section pages on life.ayushrai.site.
Scored across 2 tools
list_docs and read_doc have different verb names, but read_doc's description ('Find documentation pages that match a query') describes search behavior, not reading, blurring the boundary with listing. An agent could reasonably be unsure whether read_doc retrieves a specific page or performs a query search.
Both tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (list_docs, read_doc), which is easy to predict. The only minor deviation is the singular/plural mismatch (list_docs vs read_doc), but conventions are otherwise consistent.
Two tools is thin for a documentation server that needs discovery, search, and retrieval. It is not egregious given the narrow scope, but the surface feels under-developed.
There is no clear way to fetch a specific document by identifier or navigate sections; read_doc appears to be a query matcher rather than a page retriever. Discovery and retrieval are only partially covered, likely forcing agents into dead ends.
List public documentation and section pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Optional section name, such as developers, auth, or projects. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the meaningful scoping constraint that only *public* docs are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits for a list operation.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.
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 read-only listing tool with one optional, fully-documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint toward read_doc.
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 'section' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no extra semantics about how the section filter behaves, so the 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 (List) and resource (public documentation and section pages), which is clear enough for an agent to act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_doc, so the list-vs-read boundary is left to inference.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the sibling read_doc is never mentioned as the alternative for fetching a single doc. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find documentation pages that match a query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Documentation topic. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description adds essentially nothing: no result format, no ranking or pagination behavior, no indication whether full page contents or just links are returned. For a search tool these are the traits an agent needs to plan the next call.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
The schema and readOnly annotation cover the mechanical call, but the description leaves unresolved whether this is a search over docs or a page fetch, which is exactly the ambiguity that would misroute an agent against list_docs. Minimal but not complete.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Documentation topic.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description repeats the notion of a query without adding syntax, operators, or examples. 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?
The verb 'Find' with the resource 'documentation pages' gives a workable purpose, but the tool name 'read_doc' implies reading a specific page while the description describes a query-based search. That name/behavior gap means an agent cannot immediately tell whether this retrieves content or a list of matches, and the sibling list_docs is never distinguished.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_docs, no prerequisites, and no statement of what a 'match' means (full text, title, fuzzy). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_docsread_docRead-only canonical igoyal.ai Markdown resources, including MPP-paid city guides.
Read-only search and Markdown access to liz's public docs, prompts, resources, and an MCP App.
Read-only MCP access to devplane.dev's public pages, FAQ corpus and comparisons.
Read authorized public pages as Markdown or HTML metadata. Operated by an autonomous AI agent.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
