Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WTFM

WTFM

Official
by SupportPages-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

supportpages_get_article

Read-only

Fetch remote article content, revision, and publication state for an article in the bound project using its required article ID.

Instructions

Read remote content, revision and publication state for an article in the bound project.

Tool call template

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "supportpages_get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
article_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that content is fetched remotely and that revision/publication state comes back, but says nothing about pagination, caching, auth requirements, or failure modes when the article is missing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Slightly dense phrasing ('revision and publication state') but nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. What is missing is where article_id comes from (list_articles results?) and how this read differs from preview/list siblings, which matters in a 50+ tool surface.

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 0%, so the single parameter article_id is documented only by a numeric-string regex pattern. The description does not clarify the ID's origin or format, leaving a gap, though with only one required parameter the risk is limited.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an article in the bound project') plus what is returned: remote content, revision and publication state. It clearly separates fetching a single article from list_articles, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of supportpages_list_articles, supportpages_preview_article, or supportpages_get_operation, and no prerequisites or error conditions are noted. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools