tilla_docsRetrieve the complete API manual in one call without a key to understand endpoints, parameters, plans, paging, tick, resume, changes, and bulk operations before making API calls.
The whole API manual in one call, no key needed: every call, every parameter, every plan, how paging, tick, resume, changes and bulk work. Read this first when you need to know how to do anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: no API key is required, the response is the complete manual with no filtering, and it is authoritative enough to be read first. It stops short of describing the return format or size of the dump.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste. The scope claim is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately, so the agent gets both 'what' and 'when' in the first read.
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 does the work of telling the agent what comes back (calls, parameters, plans, paging/tick/resume/changes/bulk behavior). The remaining gap is the response format and rough size — an agent can't tell whether it's getting markdown or JSON, or how large the payload is.
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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, and the description correctly signals that the call is argument-free.
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 resource (the whole API manual) and enumerates its contents — every call, parameter, plan, and behavior (paging, tick, resume, changes, bulk). This clearly separates it from the data-returning siblings like tilla_tick or tilla_changes, which fetch live data rather than documentation.
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?
"Read this first when you need to know how to do anything" gives an explicit trigger condition for invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name the siblings as alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.