Fetch full README.md docs for a given @gaddario98 React package (react-core, react-form, react-queries, react-pages). Use it to understand setup, API, and usage.
Get the full README.md documentation for a specific @gaddario98 React package
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageId | Yes | Package identifier: 'react-core', 'react-form', 'react-queries', or 'react-pages' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return artifact ('full README.md'). However, it omits what happens for an unknown packageId, whether output is truncated or paginated, and any read-only/error semantics.
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 the resource stated immediately and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used its remaining length to add routing or error context.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, naming the exact returned artifact (README.md) is nearly enough. Only the absence of invalid-input behavior and sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.
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 packageId field already enumerates the four valid values, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 (Get) and resource (full README.md documentation) for a scoped target (@gaddario98 React package). It is distinguishable from get_package_types and get_package_source by naming the docs artifact, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With siblings like get_package_source and get_package_types available, the agent must infer on its own that this tool is for prose documentation rather than code or type definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.