cs2wt-docs-mcp

get_page

Retrieve documentation page content by title or numeric row ID, optionally extracting a specific section to limit response size. Use when you know the exact page identifier and need to read its text.

Instructions

读取某个文档页面的正文，可按章节只取一部分。

何时使用：已知页面标题（或数字 rowid），需要阅读其内容；或只想读取某章节以控制返回体积。何时不使用：只知道模糊关键词时，先用 search_docs 定位。参数：id_or_title 为纯数字时按数字 rowid 查询，否则按页面标题查询； section 为可选的章节标题（不区分大小写，支持部分匹配）。返回：JSON，含 found、title、url、revid、timestamp、content；未找到页面或章节时 found 为 false。索引初始化中或刷新失败时返回 status 字段；后台刷新进行中时额外带 refreshing 字段。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section`	No
`id_or_title`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses not-found behavior (found=false), index initialization/refresh failure status, and background refresh behavior. It does not explicitly mention auth or side-effect freedom, but for a read-only page retrieval tool the disclosed behavior is strong.

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?

The description is well-organized into 'when to use', 'when not to use', parameter guidance, and return behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists, the description still adds important contextual details: exact return fields, failure semantics, and background refresh states. It covers the main edge cases an agent needs to correctly interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: id_or_title semantics are clarified (numeric means rowid, otherwise title), and section is documented as optional, case-insensitive, and partially matching. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('读取某个文档页面的正文') and clarifies the optional section scope. It also differentiates itself from sibling tool search_docs by stating when get_page applies versus when search is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides '何时使用' and '何时不使用' conditions: use when the page title or numeric rowid is known, and do not use when only fuzzy keywords are known—use search_docs instead. This gives clear selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server