Retrieves the full markdown content of a Construct 3 documentation topic by slug, with optional language and category filters to locate the correct page.
Get the full markdown content of a Construct 3 documentation topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code (default: en) | |
| topic | Yes | Topic slug (e.g. 'sprite', 'platform', 'layouts') | |
| category | No | Category to disambiguate topics with same slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the return format ('full markdown content'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, behavior for invalid/missing topics, or language fallback for the 'lang' parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb and the payload format both land immediately.
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 simple read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the definition covers purpose and return format adequately. The main missing piece is how to discover valid topic slugs, which matters for a lookup tool in a family that includes list_topics and search_docs.
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 100% — every parameter including the enum-constrained 'category' is documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full markdown content of a Construct 3 documentation topic.' This clearly separates it from search_docs and list_topics by emphasizing full content retrieval of a single topic, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this versus search_docs, list_topics, or get_examples, and doesn't say where valid topic slugs come from. The choice is left entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.