Show documentation for a Rust item by path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Item path, e.g. `serde::Deserialize` or `std::vec::Vec`. A crate segment may carry an `@`-suffixed semver requirement (not an exact version): `tokio@1::runtime::Runtime` serves the newest 1.x, while `tokio@=1.40` pins an exact release. |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, return format, or interaction with external crates beyond what annotations already convey.
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 accurate sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core function.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with rich parameter schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the purpose ('Show documentation') makes the return type obvious.
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 schema description covers the 'path' parameter completely (100% coverage) with examples and semantics for version requirements. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that the path points to a Rust item, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Show documentation') and identifies the resource ('Rust item') and the key qualifier ('by path'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling 'search', which is likely for finding items rather than direct retrieval.
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 implies usage when you know an item's path, but it does not explicitly mention the sibling 'search' tool as an alternative for cases where the path is unknown. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get fetches docs for a known path, while search discovers items or crates. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names are single lowercase verbs (get, search), following a consistent, predictable pattern. No mixed conventions or inconsistent styles.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a documentation server that might benefit from listing or browsing capabilities. However, the tools cover the core actions of fetching and searching, so the count is borderline acceptable.
The tool surface covers the primary read-only operations for Rust documentation: retrieving specific items and searching for them. Minor gaps exist, such as enumerating modules or listing crate versions, but they are not critical and can be worked around.