hig_tocRetrieve the full Apple Human Interface Guidelines table of contents covering Getting Started, Foundations, Patterns, Components, Inputs, and Technologies to navigate design guidance.
Return the full Human Interface Guidelines table of contents (Getting started, Foundations, Patterns, Components, Inputs, Technologies).
| 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the full table of contents with major sections, which is useful but not deeply detailed. No contradictions.
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, clear sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action (return) and the resource (table of contents) followed by a parenthetical list of sections. Ideal length for a zero-parameter 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?
For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with openWorldHint and idempotentHint, the description is complete enough. An agent knows exactly what to expect from the call. No output schema, but the description implies a structured list of sections, which is sufficient.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters)Skip means there's nothing to explain beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage and no params, a baseline 4 is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.
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 clearly states it returns the full HIG table of contents and lists the main sections. This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like hig_search, hig_get, and hig_list.
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 this is the tool to get an overview of the entire HIG structure, contrasted with siblings that likely search or retrieve specific items. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear. No exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.