list_docsList all available Gonka documentation files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the list includes 'all available' files, implying a comprehensive enumeration, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential edge cases. With annotations present, this minimal additional context is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining informative.
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, no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient. The output schema exists, so the return values are documented there. The description covers the essence of the operation, and no critical information seems missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space on nonexistent parameters.
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 tool's function: 'List all available Gonka documentation files.' It specifies the verb (List), the resource (documentation files), and the scope (all available). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_doc (which reads a specific file) and search_docs (which searches), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when needing to enumerate documentation files, but it does not state when not to use it or suggest other tools for specific cases. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is slight overlap between register_on_gonka and get_signup_link (both return signup links) and between get_pricing, calculate_savings, compare_providers, and suggest_model_for_task (all deal with pricing). Descriptions help differentiate, but boundaries are not perfectly sharp.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_savings, get_available_models, search_docs). No mixed conventions or abbreviations. Naming is predictable and clear.
18 tools is on the higher side, but each serves a specific function within pricing, documentation, and signup workflows. The count feels slightly bloated, particularly with closely related documentation graph tools, but overall still well-scoped.
The tool set comprehensively covers the domain of Gonka Network pricing: live pricing, comparisons, savings calculations, model recommendations, documentation search (graph and full-text), trial key provisioning, and signup links. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.