DevDocs MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and provides examples of output (e.g., listing Python versions), but it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no filter is applied beyond stating it lists '~600 documentaciones'. The examples add some behavioral context but leave gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of filtering, and then three concise usage examples that efficiently demonstrate key scenarios. Every sentence adds clear value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides examples, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits like performance or limitations. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of filter usage ('python', 'react') and illustrating the output differences, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's generic description. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints or edge cases in detail.

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 specific action ('Lista todas las documentaciones') and resource ('en DevDocs'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_documentation or get_documentation_index by focusing on listing all available documentations rather than searching or retrieving specific content. The Spanish phrasing is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list all documentations with optional filtering by technology name) and includes usage examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives like search_documentation for more complex searches. The examples help illustrate the filtering behavior effectively.

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