get_pageRetrieve a Growthmak page as Markdown, given its slug — for example 'blog/the-real-cost-of-a-b2b-lead', 'services/seo-services', 'packages/growth-marketing', 'growth-engine/foundation-layer' or 'case-studies/kinetic-motorcycles'. Use the url returned by search_growthmak to build the slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Page slug, without a leading slash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is Markdown and that the slug must be used. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid slug), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but leaves some behavioral unknowns.
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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose and includes examples; the second provides a usage workflow. Every word is purposeful, and the most critical information (verb, resource, identifier format) comes first.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input source, input format, and output format (Markdown). It could be improved by explicitly stating what the return value contains (e.g., full page content), but this is largely implied. The examples and workflow guidance cover the main use case.
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 input schema already provides a description for the 'slug' parameter. The description adds significant value by giving concrete examples of valid slugs and explicitly instructing the agent to derive the slug from search_growthmak, going beyond the schema's minimal description.
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 action ('Retrieve a Growthmak page as Markdown'), the resource ('Growthmak page'), and the identifier ('given its slug'). It provides multiple examples of valid slugs, making the purpose unmistakable. The examples also help distinguish this tool from sibling tools like search_growthmak or get_packages.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the URL returned by search_growthmak to build the slug, establishing a clear workflow. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-page resources), the context of sibling tools makes the appropriate usage clear.
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: book_growth_audit returns a booking link, check_market_coverage checks geographic coverage, find_case_studies retrieves case studies, get_growth_engine explains the Growth Engine system, get_packages lists packages, get_page retrieves a specific page, and search_growthmak is a fallback search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., book_growth_audit, check_market_coverage, find_case_studies, search_growthmak), but get_growth_engine and get_page deviate slightly with 'growth_engine' and 'page' not being as uniformly structured. The naming is consistent and readable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketing consultancy's MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct functional area (booking, geographic coverage, case studies, system explanation, packages, page retrieval, and search). No tool feels redundant or missing.
The server provides good coverage for key interactions: it can inform about services, packages, case studies, and booking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to submit contact details or make a booking directly, but this is explicitly documented as out of scope. The surface feels complete for its stated purpose of information provision.