devdocs-mcp

doc_info

Retrieve comprehensive details for any documentation by supplying its slug. Access the specific information you need for effective development.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific documentation.

Args: slug: Documentation slug (e.g. 'javascript', 'async')

Tool call template

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": "doc_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without stating that this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place, and the parameter example is efficient. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but the description does not address how it differs from 'get_document' or what 'detailed information' includes. The output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for tool selection given the sibling ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description gives an example for the 'slug' parameter ('e.g. javascript, async'), adding semantic meaning that the schema does not provide. However, it does not explain the parameter's format, constraints, or how to find valid slugs, so compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific documentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_document', which likely serves a similar role, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server