get_pageGet one of your pages by slug: title, format, status, view/like counts, expiry, and whether it is password-protected. Never returns the page body or the password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| likes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| views | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| expiresAt | No | ||
| permanent | No | ||
| hasPassword | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states that the page body and password are never returned, which is crucial for an AI agent to understand the tool's limitations.
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 sentences: the first efficiently conveys the action and return fields, the second states a key exclusion. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 the presence of an output schema (per context signals) and the simple nature of the tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not return. No gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by slug' but does not elaborate on the slug's format or where to obtain it. The parameter is simple, so the added value is minimal, but it is sufficient for a single required parameter.
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 retrieves a single page by slug, listing specific metadata fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_my_pages (which lists all pages) and delete_page or update_page (which modify).
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 implies use when you need a specific page's metadata by slug, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention prerequisites. It is clear enough but lacks exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: delete, get account, get page metadata, list pages, publish new, update existing. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (delete_page, get_account, get_page, list_my_pages, update_page) with only 'publish' being a single verb but still clear and consistent with the pattern.
6 tools cover the core operations of a page hosting service (CRUD, list, account info) without being too many or too few. The scope is well-scoped.
The tool set covers CRUD and listing, but notably get_page does not return the page body, so agents cannot retrieve published content via API. Missing tools like 'search pages' or account management, but the core workflow is largely complete.