Nodiom Cloud

Read section

nodiom_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the Markdown content at a structural location within a document.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes	Document ID. Examples: "waitlist", "content-calendar", "metrics".
`selector`	Yes	Structural selector. Examples: "## Signups", "## Active > li[0]", "## Active > li[contains=\"id=c_7f3a\"]". Prefer the contains form when writing: an index is a position, not an identity, so if another agent appends to the same section between your read and your write, li[0] now points at a different node and your write lands on the wrong one. A contains selector must match exactly one node or it errors rather than guessing.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doc_id`	Yes	The document id.
`content`	Yes	The Markdown at that location. For a heading, its body without the heading line.
`selector`	Yes	The selector the call addressed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "description": "The Markdown at that location. For a heading, its body without the heading line.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "doc_id": {
+      "description": "The document id.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selector": {
+      "description": "The selector the call addressed.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "doc_id",
+    "selector",
+    "content"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating its own title — no error semantics (e.g., non-matching or ambiguous selectors), no note that it is a pure read against a versioned store, nothing the annotations and schema don't already convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler or redundancy. Nothing in it is wasted, even if more substance would have been welcome.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is structurally simple (2 required params), annotations are complete, the schema documents both parameters well, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. What is missing is routing context: with four sibling read tools (get_doc, read_list, query, tree) an agent gets no help picking this one, which is the remaining gap.

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% and the selector field is unusually rich, including worked examples and the contains-vs-index rationale with a concrete race-condition warning. The description contributes nothing beyond the phrase "structural location," so this sits at the baseline 3 that fully-documented schemas earn.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns the Markdown content") and scopes it to "a structural location within a document," which is clearer than the bare title "Read section." However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like nodiom_get_doc, nodiom_read_list, nodiom_query, or nodiom_tree, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The phrase "structural location" implies the tool is for targeted, selector-based reads, but the description never says when to reach for this versus nodiom_get_doc (whole document) or nodiom_read_list (listing). Any practical guidance lives only in the selector schema field.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nodiom Cloud tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.