TechFabric

Read a page

get_page

Read-onlyIdempotent

One published page of www.techfabric.com as clean Markdown, with its title, search title (metaTitle), description, date, updated, author, tags, FAQs as question and answer pairs, and canonical URL. Takes a URL, a path or a post's slug. Only published, indexable pages. Drafts are private: list_drafts lists a signed-in engineer's drafts; a TechFabric engineer connects with Microsoft (the client's Connect or Authenticate button) to list and write them.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url_or_slug`	Yes	A techfabric.com URL, a path such as /services/databricks, or a post's slug

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`date`	Yes
`faqs`	Yes
`tags`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes	The page's heading
`author`	Yes
`updated`	Yes
`markdown`	Yes	The page as Markdown, without the site's navigation; a very long page is cut at a heading (truncated)
`canonical`	Yes
`metaTitle`	Yes	The page's <title>, as search results show it
`truncated`	No	The page was longer than one result carries; markdown_url has all of it
`description`	Yes
`markdown_url`	No	The whole page as Markdown, to fetch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / markdown / description

Previous value: -"The page as Markdown, without the site's navigation"New value: +"The page as Markdown, without the site's navigation; a very long page is cut at a heading (truncated)"

addedOutput schema / properties / markdown_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The whole page as Markdown, to fetch",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / truncated

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The page was longer than one result carries; markdown_url has all of it",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context on top — that only published, indexable pages are reachable and that drafts require a Microsoft-authenticated engineer. It does not describe behavior for unpublished or unknown URLs, which would have completed the picture.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by input forms and scope limits, in three tight sentences. The closing sentence on draft auth requirements is slightly tangential for a read tool but earns its place by preventing a wrong-tool selection.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving scope, inputs, and draft routing — all addressed. The only real gap is error/not-found behavior for unpublished or nonexistent URLs.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already lists URL, path, and slug. The description's "takes a URL, a path or a post's slug" mostly restates it, adding only the implicit note about which slug form is expected. Baseline 3 fits a case where the schema does the work.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — reads one published page of techfabric.com and returns it as clean Markdown — and enumerates the returned fields so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The scope word "published" distinguishes it from the draft-oriented siblings without needing to open schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says which inputs are accepted (URL, path, slug), restricts to published/indexable pages, and routes draft needs to list_drafts with the auth prerequisite spelled out. The exclusion for drafts is clear, though other plausible alternatives (check_draft, preview_draft, get_brief) are not named.

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

All TechFabric tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.