Fetches README section(s) by case-insensitive partial title, helping you locate specific bot framework documentation when you know only part of the section name.
Get README section(s) by case-insensitive partial title, e.g. 'ButtonGrid'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It does disclose two non-trivial traits beyond the schema: matching is case-insensitive and partial, and the plural 'section(s)' signals multiple results may return. It says nothing about behavior on zero matches or duplicate titles, which matters for a lookup tool with no annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the matching semantics and an example folded in efficiently. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the sole parameter's matching semantics are covered. The remaining gap is the lack of routing against list_doc_sections and the undefined zero-match case for a tool with no annotations.
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 0% and the single 'title' param has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, spelling out case-insensitive partial matching and giving a concrete example value ('ButtonGrid'). It stops short of stating whether an empty string matches everything or how ambiguity is resolved.
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 (README section(s)) plus the lookup key semantics ('case-insensitive partial title'). It does not mention the obvious siblings get_guide_section or list_doc_sections, so the agent must infer the README-vs-guide distinction from the names alone.
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 partial-title matching implies a lookup use case, but the description never says when to use this instead of list_doc_sections (enumerate all) or search_guide. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated; usage must be inferred from naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.