Retrieve category page content by providing Document360 category and page IDs. Fetch the exact article text for use in applications or support workflows.
Get category page content by ID from Document360
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | Document360 page ID (UUID string) | |
| category_id | Yes | Document360 category ID (UUID string) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / category_id / titleRemoved value: -"Category Id"Input schema / properties / page_id / titleRemoved value: -"Page Id"v1.0.0Input schema / properties / category_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Document360 category ID (UUID string)"Input schema / properties / page_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Document360 page ID (UUID string)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with it. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, but for a simple getter with an output schema the annotation covers the main behavioral concern.
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 compact sentence states action, resource, lookup key, and context with no filler or repetition. The structure is front-loaded and every word adds meaning.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be stronger by explaining the relationship between category_id and page_id or when this content endpoint is appropriate, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, with both page_id and category_id documented as UUID strings, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's singular 'by ID' is slightly ambiguous given two required IDs, but the schema resolves it; the description adds no parameter-level information.
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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('category page content'), the lookup mechanism ('by ID'), and the source system ('Document360'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_category, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over get_category, get_article, or search_in_project. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.