Reads a OneNote page in ONMD format, preserving image and attachment markers; optionally include block IDs to inspect or edit specific blocks.
Página em ONMD, o mesmo formato que as tools de escrita aceitam. Imagens e anexos vêm como
recurso:; mantenha essas marcas como estão (não se recriam). incluir_ids mostra {id=…} dos blocos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pagina_id | Yes | ||
| incluir_ids | No |
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 burden. It usefully discloses output behavior (images/attachments rendered as recurso:<id>, marks must be preserved, incluir_ids exposes block ids), but says nothing about permissions, size limits, or error cases for a read operation.
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?
Short, dense and front-loaded: the format statement comes first, then the attachment caveat, then the parameter note. No filler sentences, though the phrasing is slightly terse.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, yet the description only partially covers the return shape. It explains the ONMD body and the recurso:<id> convention but leaves pagina_id semantics and any pagination/error behavior unaddressed.
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 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description explains incluir_ids (shows {id=…} of blocks), but pagina_id is only implied via the tool name, leaving half the parameters without explicit meaning.
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 the resource and its representation ('Página em ONMD'), which combined with the name ler_pagina makes it clear this reads a single page's content. It implicitly distinguishes itself from listar_paginas/buscar_paginas by describing the page body format, but never says the explicit verb 'read/lê'.
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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. It notes the format matches writing tools, but does not say when to use ler_pagina vs buscar_paginas, listar_blocos, or ler_spec.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.