Return the full Markdown of one documentation page by its path, e.g. "/library/clip" or "/native/commands/inject".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Page path, with or without a leading slash or .md suffix. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states a read operation (return Markdown), which is clear, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits.
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 concise sentence front-loading the action and resource, with no wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains input and output. It could mention error cases or response format, but for a straightforward tool it is fairly complete.
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 description adds value by explaining the path format (leading slash optional, .md suffix optional) and providing examples, going beyond the schema's brief description.
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 returns the full Markdown of a documentation page by its path, with examples like '/library/clip'. This distinguishes it from siblings that list pages or search.
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 the page path is known, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs siblings like 'search' or 'list_pages'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list_pages and search/search_docs serve different entry points, and fetch/get_page retrieve by id vs path. However, the presence of two search tools and two retrieval tools could cause mild confusion, though descriptions clarify intended workflows.
Naming is inconsistent: mix of verb-only (fetch, search) and verb_noun (get_page, list_pages, search_docs). No consistent pattern, and 'fetch' vs 'get_page' feel arbitrary.
With 5 tools, the server covers essential doc operations (list, search, read). Slightly more than minimal, but reasonable for a documentation server.
Core operations are covered: listing all pages, searching, and retrieving full content. Minor gap: no tool for browsing by section or getting metadata only, but generally complete.
