list_agents_md_sectionsLists the section headings in a project's AGENTS.md so clients can fetch a single section instead of using context on the full file.
List the headings in this project's AGENTS.md, so a client can pull one section instead of spending context on the whole file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description's added value is the context-cost rationale, which is useful but modest, and it says nothing about the shape of what is returned.
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, front-loaded sentence: verb/resource first, rationale second. No waste and nothing buried.
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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to select it. The only gap is that it does not hint at the return payload (heading list structure), which is a minor omission.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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 (List) and resource (headings in this project's AGENTS.md), so an agent can tell this apart from read_agents_md (full content) or author_agents_md (write). The contrasting sibling is only implied via 'instead of the whole file' rather than named, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 trailing clause gives a clear situational rationale for the tool: use it to find a section so you can fetch just that part, saving context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the follow-up tool (read_agents_md) directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.