wiki_pages_getFetch the Markdown body of a Yandex Wiki page by slug, with optional past revision and redirect handling.
The page's markdown body for SLUG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Wiki page slug (its path), e.g. ``users/something/abc``. | |
| revision_id | No | Show this past revision (an id from ``pages_revisions_list``). | |
| raise_on_redirect | No | Fail if the page is a redirect instead of following it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Input schema / properties / raise_on_redirect / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / raise_on_redirect / defaultPrevious value: -falseNew value: +nullInput schema / properties / raise_on_redirect / typeRemoved value: -"boolean"v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return value is markdown body, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about redirect handling (raise_on_redirect) or revision retrieval beyond what the schema already provides.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment lacking a verb. It is concise to a fault, potentially leaving the agent to infer the action.
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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and known annotations, the description covers the essential return value. However, it omits usage context and sibling differentiation, which would help an agent select correctly among the many wiki_pages_* tools.
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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add any syntax or format details for slug, revision_id, or raise_on_redirect beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names the resource (page) and the specific return content (markdown body) scoped by SLUG. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling wiki_pages_get_meta, which likely returns metadata rather than content, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like wiki_pages_get_meta, wiki_pages_get_by_id, or wiki_pages_revisions_list. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.