read_pageFetch a docs.nyuchi.com page and return its readable text content. Accepts a path (e.g. /kweli/verification/) or a full docs.nyuchi.com URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Page path or full docs.nyuchi.com URL |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it fetches a page and returns text, but omits details like required authentication, potential errors, caching behavior, or any side effects. For a simple fetch, this is minimal but insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description is too vague about the output format ('readable text content' is ambiguous). With no output schema, it should specify whether it returns plain text, markdown, or structured data. This gap limits the agent's ability to use the response.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the schema's description (path or URL) without adding new semantics or format details, thus no value added.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'docs.nyuchi.com page', and specifies the output 'readable text content'. The purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like search_docs or ask_docs.
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 fails to provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent guessing about the best tool for a given context.
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 targets a distinct action: Q&A, issue filing, page reading, searching, and feedback submission. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (ask_docs, raise_issue, read_page, search_docs, submit_feedback), making them predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a documentation server. It covers the primary user interactions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (search, read, ask, file issues, give feedback). Minor omission is a browse or list pages tool, but search compensates.