List available versions for a project. Call this before resolve_docs or search_docs to see valid version strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project slug (e.g. "nextjs", "react") |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and dynamism. The description adds context that ordering matters, which is valuable behavioral info beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter hint via usage example, leaving no critical gaps.
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 coverage is 100%; the schema already describes the 'project' parameter in detail. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists available versions for a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by naming sibling tools resolve_docs and search_docs, implying it is a prerequisite.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this tool before resolve_docs or search_docs, providing clear when-to-use context and differentiating its role among 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing projects, listing versions, resolving documentation URLs, and semantic search. No overlap exists.
All tools follow a consistent verb_plural pattern (list_projects, list_versions, resolve_docs, search_docs), making them predictable.
With 4 tools covering project discovery, version exploration, artifact retrieval, and search, the count is well-scoped for a documentation server.
The tool surface covers the main read-only operations for documentation projects. A minor gap is the lack of project metadata retrieval beyond versions, but it is sufficient for most use cases.