Fetch a Logseq page by name and optionally include its child blocks to access the full content.
Get a page from Logseq by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the page to retrieve | |
| include_children | No | Whether to include child blocks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', giving no detail about return format, exact-match/case sensitivity, behavior when the page does not exist, or the effect of the include_children default. This is thin for a tool with no output schema.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loads the action and object before the qualifier. There is no filler, though the brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps penalized 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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition does not explain what a returned page contains, what format 'name' expects, or the implications of include_children defaulting to true. The sibling set also makes the lack of routing guidance more costly.
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 both parameters are already documented. The phrase 'by name' aligns with the required name parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('a page'), and the lookup mechanism ('by name'), which distinguishes it from get_all_pages and get_journal_page. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_journal_page, search_pages, or get_all_pages. 'By name' implies the input condition, but there is no context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.