The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches and returns the actual documentation content, while the other returns resource links for the client to load. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Both tools follow the same 'effect-[noun]' naming pattern with descriptive, hyphenated names. The convention is consistent and predictable.

With only two tools, the server feels thin and borderline for a documentation-focused MCP. The tools are useful, but the count is at the low end of what is considered appropriate.

The server covers the two primary operations for documentation access: fetching content and obtaining links. However, it lacks discovery tools (e.g., listing available libraries) which represents a minor gap depending on the client's needs.