Generate Markdown API documentation from plain method-and-path route lines, turning route definitions into structured endpoint docs.
Document routes listed as method path lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routes | Yes | Routes text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what 'document' produces (returned text, written file), whether it mutates state, or any auth/rate constraints. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it differs from apidoc_from_openapi; it does neither. For a low-complexity single-parameter tool this is still too thin to call it correctly with confidence.
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% with a single required 'routes' string, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'method path lines' adds a small format hint beyond the schema's bare 'Routes text', but no syntax example or delimiter details are given.
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 'Document' plus the resource 'routes' gives a recognizable purpose, and 'method path lines' hints at the accepted input format. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling apidoc_from_openapi, which appears to do the same job from a different source format, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus apidoc_from_openapi or apidoc_status, and no prerequisites or context are given. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.