Retrieve a published Hoppscotch API document's title, versions, folders, variables, and endpoint count to inspect its structure before reading endpoints.
Get a published document's title, versions, folders, variables, and endpoint count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' and the 'published document' qualifier imply a read-only operation on already-published docs, which is useful context, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, behavior for unpublished/nonexistent URLs, or error handling.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists the payload contents efficiently with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 description usefully enumerates the return contents in the absence of an output schema, which partially compensates. However, with no annotations and an entirely undocumented input parameter, an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently with correct argument semantics.
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 0% and the single parameter doc_url has no schema description; the description does not explain the expected URL format, whether it can be a slug or full URL, or that it defaults to empty. The parameter is effectively undocumented in both places.
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 (Get) and resource (document) and enumerates the returned fields (title, versions, folders, variables, endpoint count), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_endpoint or search_documentation, though the noun 'document' vs 'endpoint' provides implicit separation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_endpoints, search_documentation, or get_endpoint, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the per-document detail lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.