list_docsLists all Anahita documentation pages by group, including each page name for read_doc and its sections, with optional filtering to Services or Web docs.
Lists every page of Anahita's docs, in its groups, with each page's name for read_doc and its sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | Only the docs of Anahita Services ("services") or Anahita Web ("web") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by describing the shape of what comes back: pages nested in groups, page handles usable in read_doc, plus sections.
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 with no filler, and the core action ('Lists every page') is front-loaded. The trailing clause about page names and sections is dense but each element carries information.
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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it and roughly what comes back. It does not address volume or pagination for a full enumeration, nor how the optional source filter interacts with 'every page'.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'source' parameter is documented with its enum in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about filtering and its 'every page' wording slightly obscures that the optional source parameter narrows the listing.
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 (lists) and resource (every page of Anahita's docs) and sketches the response structure (groups, page names, sections). It also names read_doc, making the relationship to that sibling explicit rather than tautological.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'each page's name for read_doc' hints that this is the discovery step before reading, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no routing against search_docs, which is the obvious alternative for targeted lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.