Skip to main content
Glama

Read one signed page

semanto_page
Read-onlyIdempotent

One page of a company's signed copy as markdown, by its path on the company's site. No key needed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "trooth_id": "<trooth_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "semanto_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe page's path, for example /pricing.
trooth_idYesThe company's Trooth ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the return format (markdown) and that no key/authentication is required. Missing are edge behaviors such as what happens for an unknown path or whether output is truncated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and format stated first and the auth reassurance last. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two fully-documented parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. The one soft spot is the word 'page,' which could mean a site page or a page of a document — a brief disambiguation would close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples (/pricing). The description only reinforces that path is a site path; it adds no syntax, normalization, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete resource and shape: 'One page of a company's signed copy as markdown, by its path on the company's site.' An agent knows it retrieves a single page rendered as markdown, keyed by site path. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling semanto_read, which plausibly overlaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'No key needed' is a genuine usage signal (no auth prerequisite), and 'by its path on the company's site' hints at when this is the right lookup. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from semanto_read or semanto_versions_list for related reads.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.