get_page_html_toolParses a MediaWiki page title into HTML so you can read or process the page's rendered content.
Parse a wiki page to HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Page title to parse |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Page title to parse"v0.1.4Input schema / properties / title / descriptionRemoved value: -"Page title to parse"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Page title to parse"v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is `readOnlyHint: true`, which the description does not contradict, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—such as error behavior for missing pages, whether parsing includes templates or macros, or any rate limits. With annotations covering only the safety profile, the description should do more to differentiate this transformation from raw page retrieval.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized for a simple tool, though the extreme brevity means it omits useful context rather than being optimally structured for decision-making.
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?
The tool is low-complexity, has a complete input schema, and includes an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits critical routing information—especially how this differs from `parse_wikitext_tool`—which is necessary for an agent to use it correctly in context.
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%: the single `title` parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Page title to parse.' The description adds no additional meaning about format, allowed values, or behavior beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Parse') and resource ('wiki page') with a clear output format ('HTML'), so an agent knows the general operation. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling tools `get_page_tool` and `parse_wikitext_tool`, leaving ambiguity about which tool to select.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `parse_wikitext_tool` or `get_page_tool`. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.