Extract text and tables from a specific page of a document and trace how each element was sourced.
Read one page: text, tables, and how each was obtained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| password | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output includes text, tables, and 'how each was obtained,' which is useful context, but it does not disclose password handling, error cases, or extraction limitations.
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 very concise and front-loads the main action. It wastes no words, though it could provide a bit more clarifying detail about parameters while remaining reasonably short.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this sparse description is not sufficient for reliable first-time invocation. An agent still needs to infer what source refers to, what password does, and how the provenance information is represented.
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%, so the description needed to clarify source, page, and password. It only hints at the page number via 'one page' and does not explain source or password at all, leaving required parameters under-specified.
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 action and resource: 'Read one page' and lists what is included (text, tables, and provenance). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like extract or to_markdown.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose read_page over sibling tools such as extract, outline, probe, or to_markdown. The phrase 'one page' weakly implies a use case, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.