List locally stored documentation sources, displaying names, page counts, and descriptions. Enables AI assistants to see available documentation for querying.
List all available documentation sources stored locally. Shows source names, page counts, and descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that sources are stored locally and what each entry contains (names, page counts, descriptions), implying a safe read. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether an empty result is possible.
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 core action front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must convey enough to call and interpret the tool. It names the returned fields well, but leaves minor gaps around result size and ordering that an agent might want to know.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to misinterpret and the description has no syntax to document. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (available documentation sources stored locally), which cleanly separates it from siblings like docs_search and docs_read. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, so it falls just 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?
Usage is implied: enumerating local sources is naturally the discovery step before docs_read or docs_search. However, the description never states when to prefer it over siblings or any prerequisites, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.