d3-mcp-server

get_docs

Retrieve D3.js API documentation for a specified module, with an optional page parameter to get detailed sub-pages.

Instructions

Get D3.js API documentation.

Provide module_name (e.g. "d3-scale" or "scale") for the overview. Add page (e.g. "linear") to get a specific sub-page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "module_name": "<module_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`module_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 behavioral burden. For a documentation-fetch tool this is low-risk, but the description says nothing about lookup behavior, whether unknown module names error or return empty, or any fallback behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and each remaining sentence maps to one parameter. No wasted text.

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?

With only 2 parameters, an output schema present, and the description covering both the required and optional argument's formats, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly. Only the routing vs. search_docs remains thin.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains module_name accepts a prefixed or bare form ('d3-scale' or 'scale') and gives a concrete page example ('linear'). It omits whether page is optional only with module_name or how the two interact on misses, so it is not a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Get D3.js API documentation'), which clearly sets it apart from find_example/get_example siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_docs, the closest sibling, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives implicit routing guidance by explaining that module_name yields the overview and adding page yields a sub-page, which implies when to supply each. However, it never says when to use this tool versus search_docs or find_module (e.g. when the module name is unknown), leaving the main routing decision unstated.

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

Deploy Server