entrySingle entry HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content of the entry | |
| path | Yes | Entry path identifier | |
| slug | Yes | Documentation slug identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "path": "array/map",
+ "slug": "javascript"
+ },
+ {
+ "path": "hooks/usestate",
+ "slug": "react"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "html": {
+ "description": "HTML content of the entry",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "description": "Entry path identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Documentation slug identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "path",
+ "html"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context such as response format, error handling, or prerequisites. It simply states the resource type without any additional detail.
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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any meaningful structure or content, making it a fragment rather than a concise description.
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 tool with two required parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is massively incomplete. It provides no purpose, parameter semantics, or usage context, and although an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for the total absence of functional explanation.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'path' or 'slug'. With 0% schema coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the parameters unexplained.
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 'Single entry HTML' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without specifying an action. It does not clarify what an 'entry' is or how this tool differs from siblings like docs or index.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor describes contexts where it should be used.
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.