get_docReturn the full markdown source of one Wraps page. Call list_docs first to see which paths have markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Site path such as /docs/quickstart/email, or the full https://wraps.dev/... URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical URL of the page. | |
| path | Yes | Site path that was read. | |
| markdown | Yes | Full markdown source. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "markdown": {
+ "description": "Full markdown source.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "description": "Site path that was read.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Canonical URL of the page.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "path",
+ "url",
+ "markdown"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns full markdown source for a single page. The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat that. No details about error behavior or missing paths are provided, though the output schema likely covers the return shape.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the prerequisite stated second. Every word earns its place, and no redundant phrasing is present.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It states what the tool does, identifies the prerequisite call, and leaves the return structure to the output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, and the path parameter already includes a clear description with both site-path and full-URL alternatives. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('full markdown source of one Wraps page'). It clearly conveys this is a single-page fetch as opposed to listing or searching docs, making it easy to distinguish from the 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 explicitly instructs agents to 'Call list_docs first to see which paths have markdown,' establishing a clear prerequisite and differentiating this tool from list_docs. It does not explicitly mention search_docs or state when not to use it, but for a simple lookup this guidance is adequate.
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.