Resolve a section cross-reference to its target page, slug, and URL, flagging titles that appear on multiple pages.
Resolve a #Section Name cross-reference to its page, slug and URL.
Pan Docs anchors are book-wide section-name lookups, not same-page anchors, so following one needs this. Flags titles that occur on more than one page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchor | Yes | A section-name anchor, e.g. '#OAM Corruption Bug'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what it returns (page, slug, URL) and adds a notable behavior: it flags titles that occur on more than one page. This is a useful caveat. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only) or error handling, but for a resolution tool, this is adequate.
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 two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the core action and output; the second explains the rationale and a key behavioral flag. No fluff, front-loaded with the action.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the result is (page, slug, URL) and warns about duplicates. It does not specify the exact return format, but that is not required without an output schema. It could mention behavior on missing anchors, but overall it is complete enough for correct usage.
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 already fully documents the anchor parameter with a description and example. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Resolve') and a precise resource ('a `#Section Name` cross-reference'), and states the output (page, slug, URL). It also distinguishes itself from same-page anchors, which differentiates it from related tools like pandocs_get_section. The purpose is 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?
It provides clear context: Pan Docs anchors are book-wide, not same-page, so this tool is needed to follow them. This implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide. Slightly less than a 5 because it doesn't contrast with siblings like pandocs_search or pandocs_get_section.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.