Lists available RoboParty documentation by product, category, and page count, plus indexed RP1 GitHub repositories and page counts so you can identify sources before answering robot questions.
[docs] 列出可用资料：RoboParty 公开文档的产品、分类与页数，以及已索引的 RP1 GitHub 仓库/页数。回答机器人问题前先用它了解可用资料。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned content in detail (products, categories, page counts, indexed repos). It never explicitly states that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, but 'list available material' makes non-mutation evident.
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 compact sentence front-loads the resource and enumerates the return contents, followed by one short usage directive. Nothing is padded, though the colon-separated enumeration is slightly dense.
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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so for both sources (public docs and GitHub repos). It is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling listing/search tools is unaddressed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify.
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 uses a specific verb ('列出') plus a concrete resource inventory: products, categories, page counts from the public docs and indexed RP1 GitHub repos with page counts. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with the close sibling docs_list_toc, leaving some ambiguity about which listing to call.
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 gives a clear usage context: call this first to learn what material exists before answering robot questions. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as docs_search_docs, so the agent must infer when a search or TOC listing is better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.