nodiom_treeRetrieve the full heading outline of a Markdown document as a nested JSON tree to understand its structure before reading or modifying content.
Returns the full structural outline of a Markdown document as a nested JSON tree of headings. Use this to understand the structure of a document before reading or modifying it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute path to the Markdown file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a nested JSON tree of headings, which implies a read-only operation and clarifies the output shape. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify the document' or describe error behavior, but for a simple structural read tool the key behavior is conveyed.
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 with no unnecessary words. The most important fact—the return value being a nested JSON tree of headings—appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds practical usage context without repetition.
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, the description must explain what the caller receives, and it does: 'nested JSON tree of headings.' Given the tool has one parameter and a read-only purpose, this is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could add edge-case behavior like empty documents or missing files.
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 documents the only parameter, file, as 'Absolute path to the Markdown file,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema fully defines the parameter's meaning.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'full structural outline of a Markdown document' in the form of a 'nested JSON tree of headings.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nodiom_read, which presumably returns content, and nodiom_read_list, which likely returns a file listing.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand the structure of a document before reading or modifying it.' It does not name alternative sibling tools or state negative conditions, but the provided context is actionable and reasonably complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.