indexIndex of entries inside a doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | Yes | List of type categories in the documentation | |
| entries | Yes | List of entries in the documentation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "javascript"
+ },
+ {
+ "slug": "react"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "entries": {
+ "description": "List of entries in the documentation",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Entry name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "description": "Entry path identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Entry type category",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "path",
+ "type"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "types": {
+ "description": "List of type categories in the documentation",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of entries in this type",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Type category name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Type slug identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "count",
+ "slug"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "entries",
+ "types"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., what 'entries' means, whether results are paginated, or what the output structure looks like). It merely restates the tool's name in a slightly expanded form.
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, front-loaded phrase with no filler words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, but the extreme terseness borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
With a simple single-parameter tool, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context and parameter semantics, leaving the tool only partially complete for an agent to reliably invoke.
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 sole parameter 'slug' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only vaguely references 'inside a doc' without explicitly stating that 'slug' identifies the document. The examples in the schema hint at values, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 'Index of entries inside a doc' conveys that the tool returns an index (list) of entries for a document, implicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'entry'. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), making it more of a label than a clear action, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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 such as 'entry', 'search_within', or 'search_index'. The description neither states explicit use cases nor contrasts with other tools, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.
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.