Read a complete documentation article by ID or slug; for large articles, use search and section reads to avoid exceeding token limits.
Read a complete documentation article. Large articles can exceed 30,000 tokens; use search_docs + read_doc_section when possible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Article id or unique slug. |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral detail that articles can exceed 30,000 tokens, which is a real context-cost warning. It says nothing about truncation, pagination, or linked-section behavior, which is the main residual gap.
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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the cost caveat and the alternative. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, this is close to sufficient: purpose, cost warning, and alternative path are all present. Only the missing guidance on when a full read is unavoidable keeps it short of full marks.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100% and only one parameter, the schema already explains that `doc` accepts an id or unique slug. The description adds no format examples, no slug-versus-id distinction, and no error behavior for unknown ids, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema baseline.
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?
"Read a complete documentation article" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "complete" implicitly separates it from the sibling read_doc_section, which fetches only part. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.
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?
It names concrete alternatives (search_docs + read_doc_section) and the condition favoring them (large articles). The qualifier "when possible" is loose, though – it never states the case where a full read is actually required, so the routing rule is suggestive rather than decisive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.