get_doc_pageGet a documentation page with full content and metadata. Returns title, slug, Markdown content, page type, and timestamps. Requires project context (call set_context first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the page | |
| versionId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the doc version | |
| documentationId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the documentation |
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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description adds a behavioral prerequisite about setting context. It does not describe error handling or side effects, but the annotation covers the main safety aspect and nothing contradicts it.
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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second states the prerequisite. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly names the fields returned (title, slug, Markdown content, page type, timestamps), giving the agent a clear expectation. It does not cover error scenarios, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient given the context of many related tools.
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 provides 100% coverage with each parameter described as 'The public Id (Guid) of ...' for documentationId, versionId, and pageId. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation page') and lists the exact return fields (title, slug, Markdown content, page type, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc_tree or get_doc_snippet, which target different aspects of documentation.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires project context (call set_context first)'), which tells the agent when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_doc_page_revision or get_doc_snippet, so guidance for choosing between them is implied rather than stated.
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 tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.