find_page_by_slugRetrouver une page éditable par son slug.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "find_page_by_slug"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that the returned page is editable; it says nothing about behavior when the slug is absent (error vs empty) or which site/workspace is searched.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler, and the key information (verb, resource, lookup key) is front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though terseness here edges into under-specification handled in other dimensions.
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 lookup with a full annotation set this could be adequate, but nothing states scope (current site vs. any site), what is returned, or the not-found behavior, which are the practical questions before calling a slug resolver.
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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the burden and merely restates the parameter name. It does not explain slug format (path segments, parent pages, locale, trailing slash) or the 1–191 character constraint's practical meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrouver une page') plus the lookup key ('par son slug'), and the qualifier 'éditable' hints that only editable pages are returned, which differentiates it somewhat from list_pages or get_page. It never explicitly names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'éditable' alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether to prefer this over get_page or list_pages, nor whether the slug is site-scoped. The only implicit signal is 'éditable', which suggests it is the lookup used before editing a page.
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.