add_doc_sourceRegister a new llms.txt documentation source at runtime and index its content for search. The source is saved for future sessions.
Register a new llms.txt source at runtime and index it. Persisted for future runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Short id, e.g. 'langgraph' | |
| llms_txt_url | Yes | URL of the source's llms.txt (https) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond annotations: it triggers indexing and the registration is persisted for future runs. It does not address duplicate names, whether indexing is immediate or async, or error behavior, which a 4-5 would require.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; 'Persisted for future runs' efficiently conveys a durability guarantee. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence leans slightly on terseness ('persisted' for what, exactly).
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 2-parameter registration tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential extras: indexing side effect and cross-run persistence. Only edge-case behavior (duplicate registration, failure modes) is left unstated, which is a minor gap.
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% with both required parameters documented (name as a short id, llms_txt_url as an https URI). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, format, or constraints, so the 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 ('Register a new llms.txt source') plus the side effect of indexing, which clearly separates it from list_doc_sources, remove_doc_source and refresh_doc_source. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 'at runtime' hints at when this applies (dynamic source registration vs. pre-configured sources), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to refresh_doc_source for already-registered sources. Usage must be inferred from the tool's name and behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.