Lists available Construct 3 documentation topics, optionally filtered by category or language, so you can discover relevant guides before querying details.
List all available Construct 3 documentation topics, optionally filtered by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code (default: en) | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does convey read-only intent via 'List' and the completeness claim 'all available'. However, it does not disclose the return shape, whether results are grouped or paginated, or how lang affects output.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero repetition. It is slightly terse given it is the only source of behavioral detail.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present, but the absence of an output schema means the description should say something about what is returned. That gap keeps it at minimum viable.
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%, so both lang and category are already documented in the schema with an enum for category. The description adds only the 'optional' framing, 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+resource ('List all available Construct 3 documentation topics') with the optional category filter. It distinguishes the tool from search_docs and get_doc implicitly, but does not clarify how it differs from the sibling list_categories, leaving mild ambiguity.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by category' implies when to apply the filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_docs, list_categories, or get_doc. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.