browse_jmp_tocBrowse the table of contents of a JMP book to locate sections and topics, optionally filtering by title text.
Browse the table of contents for one book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Book name from list_jmp_books. | |
| limit | No | Max entries. | |
| contains | No | Only titles containing this text. |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Browse' conveys read-only intent, but the description does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or behavior around limits and filtering. It is acceptable for a simple read operation but minimal.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple TOC-browsing tool.
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, and the input schema fully documents parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus alternatives, but for a simple read-only browsing tool the definition is essentially complete.
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%, and all three parameters (book, limit, contains) have explicit descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed because the schema already provides complete information. 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?
The description states a specific action ('browse') on a specific resource ('table of contents for one book'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_jmp_books and search_jmp_docs. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
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 implies usage by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_jmp_docs or find_menu_path. The schema hint 'Book name from list_jmp_books' provides some context, but the tool description itself lacks direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.