harmonyos_get_docsFetch up to 10 HarmonyOS official documentation articles as full Markdown by their document IDs. Use identifiers from search results to retrieve complete content for documentation tasks.
按文档标识批量获取 HarmonyOS 官方文档全文（Markdown，一次最多 10 篇）。标识来自 harmonyos_search_docs 结果的 parent 字段。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | 文档标识列表，如 ["document/cn/harmonyos-guides/abilitykit-overview"] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the Markdown output format and the batch limit of 10, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing critical traits are apparent.
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 sentences with no fluff. The core action, limit, format, and input source are front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, the input source, and the limit. No missing information is evident.
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%, so the parameter 'names' is documented in the schema with an example. The description adds the key semantic detail that identifiers must come from the parent field of search results, which guides correct parameter construction beyond the schema's generic example. This raises the score above the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action (batch fetch full text), the resource (HarmonyOS official docs), the format (Markdown), and the limit (max 10). It also specifies that identifiers come from the parent field of harmonyos_search_docs results, distinguishing it from the search sibling. The verb 'get' and resource are unambiguous.
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 explicitly ties usage to a prior step: identifiers come from harmonyos_search_docs results. This tells the agent when to use this tool (after search) and where to obtain valid inputs. While it doesn't list exclusions, the implied workflow is clear and sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.