get_howto_pageGet the full howto/v2 contract for one page by slug (from list_howto_pages / search_howto_pages): intro, per-step teach/intent/code, divergence notes, cross-tool links, and grounding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | How-to page slug, e.g. flight-risk-predict-which-employees-will-resign-in-excel. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what the 'full contract' includes (intro, per-step content, divergence notes, cross-tool links, grounding), but does not go beyond that to disclose rate limits, error behavior, or other operational traits.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the primary action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the returned content. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
With only one required parameter, a fully documented schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: obtain a slug from list/search, then fetch the full page. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already includes a concrete example. The description reinforces that the slug identifies one page and originates from sibling tools, but adds little beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the full howto/v2 contract for one page by slug'), and clearly distinguishes this single-page retrieval tool from the sibling list/search tools by naming them as sources of the slug. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it returns.
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?
It explicitly says the slug comes from list_howto_pages / search_howto_pages, which tells the agent when to use this tool: after finding a page via the sibling tools. It does not state explicit when-not conditions for sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for this simple one-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.