Skip to main content
Glama
jgravelle

jdocmunch-mcp

by jgravelle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_sections

Read-only

Retrieve multiple documentation sections in one batch call by passing section IDs. Unknown IDs return per-ID errors instead of failing the whole request.

Instructions

Batch content retrieval for multiple sections in one call. Content only for the ids you pass; unknown ids come back as per-id errors, not a failed call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository identifier
verifyNoVerify content hashes
section_idsYesList of section IDs to retrieve. v1.147+ — an entry may be a `doc.md#anchor` reference; an ambiguous one sets `anchor_ambiguous`, `anchor_scope`, `anchor_match_count`, `anchor_candidates` (at most 20), `anchor_candidates_truncated` and `warning` on its entry and at top level.
compress_codeNov1.35+ — drop blank lines and full-line comments inside fenced code blocks before returning. _meta.code_compressed_bytes reports total bytes saved.
strip_boilerplateNov1.24+ — strip repeated cross-section fragments per section before returning.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.147.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_ids / description
      Previous value: -"List of section IDs to retrieve"New value: +"List of section IDs to retrieve. v1.147+ — an entry may be a `doc.md#anchor` reference; an ambiguous one sets `anchor_ambiguous`, `anchor_scope`, `anchor_match_count`, `anchor_candidates` (at most 20), `anchor_candidates_truncated` and `warning` on its entry and at top level."
  2. Addedv1.118.0
  3. Removedv1.99.0
  4. First observedv1.66.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It adds meaningful behavior beyond that: partial-failure semantics (unknown ids yield per-id errors rather than failing the whole call) and the fact that only requested ids return content. Return payload format is left unspecified, but the error contract is genuinely useful.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the batch scope front-loaded before the error-handling nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only batch retrieval with full schema coverage and an annotation covering safety, the description supplies the key operational detail (per-id error behavior). With no output schema present, it could say a bit more about the returned content shape, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed per-parameter notes (anchor references, compress_code, strip_boilerplate) already in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (batch content retrieval) and resource (sections), and the phrase 'multiple sections in one call' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_section sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly frames the use case (retrieve content for several sections efficiently in one round trip) and adds a concrete behavioral rule about unknown ids. It doesn't name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it's clear context without explicit routing.

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