get_documentation_page
Retrieve the full content of a specific documentation page.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_path | Yes | Path to a docs page: repo path (docs/.../page.md), short path, or a GitHub URL. |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It only states 'retrieve full content' without disclosing any constraints, side effects, authentication needs, or response characteristics.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., using separate lines for purpose and context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not specify what 'full content' includes (e.g., rendered vs raw), possible error conditions, or prerequisites. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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% for the single parameter, providing a detailed definition of page_path. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Retrieve the full content of a specific documentation page'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_documentation_sections or search_documentation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to retrieve a single page vs list sections or search). No usage contexts or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: quick start, documentation page retrieval, support info, listing sections, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Tool Count5/5
5 tools is appropriate for a documentation/support server. It covers the essential actions without being too sparse or overloaded.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main reading operations (list, search, get) and includes specific items like quick start and support info. However, it lacks navigation to sub-sections or a way to get all pages, which is a minor gap.