hierarchyBrowse 1C:Enterprise help structure: get section summaries by default or list page groups for a chosen section (objects, tables, lang, query).
Оглавление: без section — сводка по разделам; с section — группы страниц раздела.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Раздел для детализации (objects/tables/lang/query/clang/platform/edt). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / section / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / section / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / section / descriptionPrevious value: -"Раздел для детализации"New value: +"Раздел для детализации (objects/tables/lang/query/clang/platform/edt)."Input schema / properties / section / typeRemoved value: -"string"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two distinct behaviors: a section-level summary when section is omitted, and page groups when section is supplied. This is useful, but it omits safety context (e.g., read-only nature) and any operational details like pagination or limits.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the resource name and then contrasts the two parameter states. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or filler.
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?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, a complete schema description, and an output schema, the description is largely complete because it clarifies both usage modes and the effect of the parameter. The only minor gap is absence of guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the concrete effect of supplying or omitting the section parameter: it changes the output from a section summary to page groups for the chosen section.
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 states the resource (table of contents / hierarchy) and distinguishes two modes based on the optional section parameter, so an agent can tell what the tool returns. However, it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like config_get or discover, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.
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 explains what happens with and without the section parameter but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as config_get or search. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.