MCP Framework Documentation Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the return format ('as markdown') and basic operation. It omits critical behavioral details like error handling (e.g., for invalid slugs), performance aspects (e.g., response time), or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information (action, resource, method) and efficiently includes the return format without unnecessary details. Every word serves a clear purpose, making it highly concise.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks completeness in areas like error cases or response structure, making it adequate but with gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'slug' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the slug identifies the page, aligning with the baseline score when schema handles documentation adequately.

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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('full content of a documentation page'), and method ('by its slug or URL path'), with specific differentiation from sibling tools list_sections (which lists sections) and search_docs (which searches). It provides a complete purpose statement without redundancy.

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 implicitly suggests usage when needing full page content via slug/URL, contrasting with search_docs for broader searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_sections or clear exclusions, such as for partial content retrieval.

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