Fetch Zig documentation for a given topic, such as comptime or generics, to help AI assistants answer Zig programming questions and generate accurate code.
Retrieve Zig documentation for specific topics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic to get documentation for (e.g., 'comptime', 'generics') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.2-iDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether docs are bundled locally or fetched remotely, what happens for an unknown or ambiguous topic, or what the response shape looks like — meaningful gaps for a retrieval 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves substance for other dimensions to penalize.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the bar is low, but the description still omits return format, topic matching behavior, and error handling for invalid topics. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 schema already supplies the parameter description plus examples ('comptime', 'generics'). The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Retrieve Zig documentation'), which is clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings (compile_zig, analyze_zig, suggest_fix). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a static documentation lookup rather than an analysis or compilation action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.