renforge_get_docRetrieve Ren'Py documentation as plain text by topic to let AI agents inspect CLI, API, and scripting references without parsing HTML.
Read a Ren'Py documentation page as plain text (e.g. topic='cli').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('plain text'), which is a useful trait, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown topic, whether the topic is case-sensitive, or any constraints. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation tool.
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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the example inline. No wasted words.
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 values need not be explained. But for a doc-fetch tool sitting beside search_docs and list_docs, the description lacks the differentiation and topic-domain detail an agent needs to select and call it confidently.
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?
One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It supplies an example value (topic='cli'), which is genuinely helpful, but does not enumerate valid topics or explain the topic identifier scheme beyond that single sample.
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+resource: reading a Ren'Py documentation page, and adds the return format ('as plain text'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling doc tools like renforge_search_docs or renforge_list_docs, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus renforge_search_docs or renforge_list_docs, which are obvious alternatives in the same doc-retrieval family. The reader must infer that this is for fetching one known topic while others search/list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.