Read a single HPC or SLURM documentation file by exact or partial name, such as 'slurm' or 'storage', to retrieve setup, usage, or troubleshooting guidance.
Read one documentation file. Partial names work, e.g. 'slurm', 'storage'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: fuzzy/partial name resolution, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-name behavior immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, but it leaves gaps an agent would hit: how to enumerate valid doc names (presumably hpc_list_docs), and how multiple partial matches are resolved. The basics needed to call it are present.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'string', so the description must carry the parameter burden. It partially does by explaining that partial names are accepted and giving two concrete examples, but it omits extension requirements, case sensitivity, and what happens on ambiguous matches.
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 (read) and resource (one documentation file), with the singular scope made explicit. It is clearly separable from hpc_list_docs and hpc_search_docs by the verb, though it never names those siblings or contrasts itself with hpc_read_file.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and the 'one file' scope, and it hints at the naming convention via examples ('slurm', 'storage'). It gives no explicit when-to-use vs hpc_search_docs/hpc_list_docs, and no guidance on discovering valid names first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.