Skip to main content
Glama

List the documentation pages

docs_index

Browse titles, paths, and one-line descriptions of pages across Sinequa atomic, atomic-angular, and galactik documentation to locate relevant references quickly.

Instructions

Table of contents of atomic (https://hebus.github.io/atomic-docs/docs/), atomic-angular (https://hebus.github.io/atomic-angular-docs/docs/atomic-angular/), galactik (https://hebus.github.io/atomic-angular-docs/docs/galactik/): title, path and one-line description of each page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "docs_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
libraryNoOne library; all by default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and that all libraries are covered (via schema), but says nothing about result size, cost, or whether the index is cached/static — relevant for a tool that sweeps three documentation sites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return fields come first and the library list follows. The triple URLs make it visually heavy but they do carry identification information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and over which corpus, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the absence of relative-usage guidance against siblings leaves a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is already documented ('One library; all by default'). The description adds the documentation URLs for each enum value, giving mild extra context, but no behavioral detail the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource ('Table of contents') across three named libraries and enumerates the fields returned (title, path, one-line description). An agent can distinguish it from docs_search/docs_read by the fact that it enumerates everything rather than querying, though the description never explicitly names the siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'table of contents' framing implies a browse/overview use case rather than a lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over docs_search or docs_read. Usage is inferable, not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools