get_page_versionRetrieve a specific saved page version by its version ID from list_page_history and return it as Markdown. Use it to inspect prior wiki content.
Read one saved version of a page from list_page_history, as Markdown converted by this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | Yes | Version id from list_page_history. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: content is Markdown converted by this server, telling the agent not to expect raw storage fidelity. It stops short of saying whether conversion is lossy, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the source and output format packed into the same clause. No filler or repetition.
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?
A read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation; annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the two non-obvious facts (version_id source, Markdown conversion), making it complete enough to invoke correctly.
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 single parameter already documents 'Version id from list_page_history', which the description largely restates. No additional syntax, format, or edge-case meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one saved version of a page'), its provenance ('from list_page_history'), and the return format ('as Markdown'). An agent can distinguish it from list_page_history, diff_page, and restore_page_version without opening any schema.
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?
Implicitly tells the agent that the required version_id comes from list_page_history, which is a strong usage pointer, and the Markdown note signals it is a content-reading tool rather than a diff or restore. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives like get_page, but the version-scoped framing makes selection clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.