Point MCP Server

get_document_toc

Retrieve a lightweight table of contents for a document to understand its structure before loading specific sections. Returns chunk IDs for further access.

Instructions

Get a lightweight table of contents for a document (~50 tokens).

Use this to understand document structure before loading specific sections. Returns chunk IDs that you can pass to get_sections.

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_document_toc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes	Document ID (from search results or collection listings)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the lightweight nature (~50 tokens) and that it returns chunk IDs. While it could detail permissions or rate limits, the behavioral impact is minimal for a read operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds unique value (purpose, usage hint, output description). No fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (noted in context signals), the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to siblings. Fully sufficient for effective tool selection.

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%, so baseline 3. The description does not add info beyond the schema's existing description for 'doc_id', which already explains the source.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states 'Get a lightweight table of contents' which is specific and actionable. Distinguishes from siblings like get_document_full (full document) and get_sections (specific sections) by noting it returns chunk IDs for use with get_sections.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this to understand document structure before loading specific sections,' providing clear context. Implicitly suggests not to use when full content is needed, and links to get_sections as a follow-up.

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

Deploy Server