Skip to main content
Glama

hedwigai

Read a workbook

read_workbook
Read-onlyIdempotent

The current document as markdown, with its tabs (tabs: id, name, size — pass one tab's id as sheet to read just that tab), its version, its sources, the question it is asking if any, the list of versions behind it, and messages: the runs that were questions, each with its answer. This is the same document a person reads on app.hedwigai.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sheetNoOne tab's id, from `tabs`, to read just that tab of the current version.
contextNoExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
versionNoAn earlier version to read instead of the current one.
workbookYesThe workbook id.
llm_modelNoThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by detailing the return contents (tabs with sizes, sources, the posed question, version history, and question/answer runs), which substitutes for the absent output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is front-loaded with the core ('The current document as markdown'), but it is delivered as one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals that would benefit from partitioning into return-shape vs. parameter notes.

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?

For a read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting of describing the return payload and versioning behavior. It is largely complete, with the only gap being the absence of alternative-tool routing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description usefully links the returned `tabs` field to the `sheet` parameter, but adds little for `version`, `workbook`, `context`, or `llm_model` beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description clearly states the resource (the current workbook document rendered as markdown) and enumerates what it contains — tabs, version, sources, question, prior versions, and messages. It's a specific read operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like list_workbooks, pull_workbook, or render_document.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is a hint that passing a tab's id as `sheet` reads just that tab, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. With many sibling tools for reading/locating workbooks, the agent gets no guidance on when this one is the right call.

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.