docsReturn the full DevDocs.io catalog of all available documentation sets: name, slug, type, version, and release for every supported library/language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Display name of the documentation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "release": {
+ "description": "Release version if applicable",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "URL slug identifier for the documentation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Type category of the documentation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "Version number if applicable",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "slug",
+ "type"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the 'full catalog' scope and field list, but does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. This is on par with the get_calls example where the description adds limited context beyond annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a list of returned fields. Every word is purposeful; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name in a tautological way.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return value details), the description is complete. It communicates the source (DevDocs.io), the scope (full catalog), and the fields returned, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it accurately.
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 no parameters, so the description is not required to elaborate on schema properties. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than assumed inputs. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource (the full DevDocs.io catalog), specifying the included fields (name, slug, type, version, release). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_docs, which imply targeted searching rather than a full catalog listing.
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 clearly conveys that this tool returns the entire catalog, implying use when a complete enumeration of documentation sets is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over search-oriented siblings.
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.
There are many tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple company lookup tools). The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong one.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, search_docs) with single words (db, docs) and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No clear convention across the set.
37 tools is excessive for a DevDocs documentation server; most tools are unrelated to documentation (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions). The core documentation functionality only requires about 7-8 tools, making the rest feel extraneous.
For the core DevDocs functionality, the tools cover listing, searching, and fetching documentation. However, the server includes many unrelated tools that are incomplete on their own (e.g., only some data lookups, no CRUD for prediction markets). Thus overall completeness is mediocre.