Retrieve the immediate child nodes under a specified documentation source or node. Use it to navigate hierarchical documentation and locate related subpages.
List immediate child nodes under a source root or documentation node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| node_id | No | Canonical documentation node ID | |
| source_id | Yes | Canonical documentation source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does convey that the operation is a non-recursive read ('immediate child nodes'), but it omits behavior such as pagination via limit/cursor, response shape, and whether node_id alone is sufficient or source_id is always required.
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 entire description is one tight sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, and the definition is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits how limit/cursor work, which parameter targets a 'documentation node' versus 'source root', and why source_id is required even when node_id is supplied.
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 covers only 50% of parameters; limit and cursor are undocumented there. The description clarifies the source-root/documentation-node distinction, mapping loosely to source_id and node_id, but does not explain pagination parameters or the required source_id role.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('immediate child nodes') with an explicit scope ('under a source root or documentation node'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_sources and fetch_docs, so an agent can tell what it does without inspecting schemas.
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?
The intended use is implied: use this when navigating a documentation hierarchy to get direct children. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_sources or fetch_docs, nor states any exclusions or when to prefer another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.