Resolve a project version and get artifact URLs (llms.txt, llms-full.txt, meta.json, dumps). Use list_versions first to discover valid version strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project slug (e.g. "nextjs", "react") | |
| version | Yes | Version string or "latest" |
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 mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the specific artifacts returned, which is useful context. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits 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 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action and follows with a usage hint. Every word is 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?
Description adequately explains what the tool does and lists the artifact filenames. However, without an output schema, it could be improved by specifying the response structure (e.g., key-value pairs). Still, sufficient for a simple tool.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters (project, version) with descriptions. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 resolves a project version to retrieve artifact URLs, mentioning specific filenames. It distinguishes itself indirectly by referencing list_versions as a prerequisite, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_docs.
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 advises using list_versions first, which provides clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling tools beyond the prerequisite hint.
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.