List all documentation domains and their stats to gain a complete overview of available resources and usage.
List all available documentation domains and their stats.
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_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify what 'stats' includes or whether the operation has any side effects. It gives a basic behavioral overview but lacks depth, such as return format or data scope.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, and there is no extraneous information. It is perfectly concise for a simple listing tool.
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?
Given the low complexity (0 params, no output schema) and the fact that it is a read-only list operation, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'stats'—what specific metrics are returned—but for a tool of this simplicity, the description is adequate without over-specifying.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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?
The description 'List all available documentation domains and their stats' uses a specific verb ('List'), specifies the resource ('documentation domains'), and adds the scope ('all') plus output detail ('stats'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_search (search) and docs_ingest (ingest), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for obtaining an overview of documentation domains, but it does not state exclusions like 'use docs_search to query specific content' or mention any prerequisites. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.