Retrieve JSON Schema for one doc-control operation or all operations, including batch kinds like text.replace and comment.add, to validate edit requests.
JSON Schema of one operation, or of all operations; also the kinds batch takes in ops (text.replace, comment.add…), listed under batch_operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | No | Operation or batch operation kind. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that the response includes a `batch_operations` section listing kinds like text.replace and comment.add, which is genuinely useful output-shape information. It stops short of describing structure depth or whether it is static documentation.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (JSON Schema) before the secondary note about batch operation kinds. The parenthetical example and trailing clause make it slightly run-on, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does name the two things you get back: an operation's schema and the batch_operations listing. An agent could call this correctly, though the exact response envelope for the no-`op` case is left implicit.
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?
There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `op` as 'Operation or batch operation kind.' The description restates the same dual meaning (operation vs batch operation kind) without adding format, enumeration, or example values for `op` itself.
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 concrete verb+resource: it returns the JSON Schema of one operation or of all operations, and additionally exposes batch operation kinds under `batch_operations`. That is specific enough to know what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like `capabilities` or `info`, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Passing `op` versus omitting it is implied by 'one operation, or of all operations', but the description never states when to reach for this tool over `capabilities` or `info`, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.