list_doc_page_revisionsList a page's revision history, newest first. Metadata only — read a revision's content with get_doc_page_revision before restoring it via manage_doc_page. Requires project context.
| 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 description states that only metadata is returned and does not restore content, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also mentions the ordering (newest first) and the requirement for project context, providing useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation.
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 concise and well-structured, with only two sentences that convey purpose, output type, related actions, and context requirement. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates that the result is metadata-only and ordered newest first. It also notes the requirement for project context, which is helpful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, and the parameter names are self-explanatory. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.
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 tool lists a page's revision history, newest first, and distinguishes it from get_doc_page_revision by noting it returns metadata only. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous relative to sibling tools.
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 explains when to use the tool and advises reading a revision's content with get_doc_page_revision before restoring via manage_doc_page. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and practical.
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.