Retrieve The Good Docs Project style guide and writing tips to standardize voice, tone, terminology, formatting, and readability; filter by style guide, writing tips, or all.
Get The Good Docs Project comprehensive style guide and writing tips (voice, tone, terminology, formatting, minimalism, and readability standards).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Optional filter: 'style-guide', 'writing-tips', or 'all'. Defaults to 'all'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The 'get' verb and the static-reference nature of a style guide make the read-only, side-effect-free character fairly evident, and the enumerated topic list gives useful scope information, but nothing is said about the return form (single document vs. sections), size, or whether the topic filter changes the shape of the response.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that states the resource and then brackets the covered sub-areas. No filler or redundancy, though the parenthetical list is long enough that it slightly dilutes the core statement.
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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description says what content the guide covers, which is the main thing needed to decide to call it. The only real gap is the absence of any hint about response format or granularity.
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% and the single 'topic' parameter is fully documented in-schema with its three accepted values and default. The description does not mention the filter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('The Good Docs Project comprehensive style guide and writing tips'), then enumerates the content scope (voice, tone, terminology, formatting, minimalism, readability). The resource is unmistakably different from the sibling tools (templates, document generation, saving), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference to consult when writing or reviewing documentation for style. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to any alternative source (e.g. list_templates for structure vs. this for prose style).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.