Fetch Context7 documentation for a CRAN or Bioconductor package by matching its ID to verified metadata, then use it to answer a specific package question.
Fetch Context7 docs after matching its ID to verified package metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| repository | No | cran | |
| bioc_version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no word on how the docs are matched, what happens when no match is found, whether results are ranked, or what the openWorld lookup actually contacts. The 'verified metadata' phrase hints at a gating step but never explains it.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted — but for a 4-parameter, open-world retrieval tool it is under-specified rather than concise. The one clause it spends words on (ID matching) is the least useful and most confusing part.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, in a family of 32 sibling tools, a one-line description that never distinguishes this documentation source from the others leaves an agent without enough to choose it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it barely does. 'Verified package metadata' faintly implies the package must be a real registered package, but nothing explains what 'question' should contain or how bioc_version interacts with repository, despite the enum on repository.
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?
It says to 'Fetch Context7 docs', which names a verb and a resource, but 'Context7' is unexplained and the qualifier 'after matching its ID to verified package metadata' describes no parameter the tool actually takes (the schema has package/question/repository/bioc_version, not an ID). An agent cannot tell what this does relative to get_function_docs or get_package_vignettes.
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?
'After matching its ID to verified package metadata' is the only sequencing hint and it references a nonexistent ID-matching step. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the many sibling doc tools (get_function_docs, get_package_vignettes, get_shiny_docs, get_quarto_docs) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.