Retrieves raw Rd documentation for a specified R function from CRAN or Bioconductor source archives, so you can inspect package help content without executing R.
Get raw Rd by literal alias from the selected repository and release source archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| package | Yes | ||
| function | 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the output is raw Rd from a source archive, but it does not disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or what happens with missing aliases.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is dense with domain jargon such as 'Rd' and 'literal alias', but structurally it is efficient.
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?
For a five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. An output schema exists, but input semantics, repository/bioc_version behavior, and sibling-tool alternatives are not adequately covered.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for five parameters. It only vaguely maps 'literal alias' to function and 'selected repository' to repository, while leaving package, offset, and bioc_version unexplained.
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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving raw Rd documentation by literal alias from a repository/source archive. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate its role from sibling docs tools such as get_package_vignettes or get_context7_docs.
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 instead of the many sibling documentation tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only loosely implied by the phrase 'raw Rd' and the repository/source archive context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.