doco_get_treeObtain the complete directory tree of a Doco knowledge base by supplying its ID, listing all folders and documents to help you navigate and understand the workspace structure.
获取一个知识库的完整目录树（文件夹 + 文档）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | Yes | 知识库 ID |
| 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?
The description is consistent with the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations and adds that the result is the complete directory tree including folders and documents. It does not hide side effects, and no contradictory behavior is mentioned.
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 focused sentence with no redundant words, examples, 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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tree tool, the description provides sufficient context about the return scope (folders and documents) and the target resource; it could mention output structure or sibling distinctions, but the existing output schema and clear purpose cover most needs.
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 a single parameter that has a complete schema description ('知识库 ID'), the schema already provides the necessary meaning; the description adds no further detail beyond that.
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 the action ('获取' / retrieve), the resource (a knowledge base's complete directory tree), and the scope (folders + documents), making it easy to distinguish from document-level or search tools.
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 wording implies use when the full folder/document hierarchy of a knowledge base is needed, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as doco_outline or doco_traverse or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.