Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sinequa-docs

sinequa-docs

by hebus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read a documentation page

docs_read

Retrieves a documentation page as Markdown from a path or URL, optionally returning only a specified anchor or section for targeted reading.

Instructions

A documentation page as Markdown, from its path or URL (as returned by docs_search or docs_index). A '#anchor' or 'section' returns that section only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "docs_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYesPath ('/docs/core/client'), path relative to a library ('auth/sign-in') or URL, optionally with '#anchor'
libraryNoLibrary the path belongs to, when two have the same path
sectionNoAnchor or heading of one section

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses Markdown output and that an anchor or section returns only that section, but omits read-only status, error behavior, and invalid-path handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the return type and input source. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with full schema documentation, the description covers output format and section behavior. The absence of annotations leaves minor behavioral gaps, but nothing critical for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds that section selection returns only that section and clarifies where path/URL values come from. It does not explain the library parameter, though the schema already does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States that it returns a documentation page as Markdown from a path or URL, and ties the input to docs_search or docs_index, clearly distinguishing it from those sibling tools. The read verb is implied by the name rather than stated outright, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Establishes that inputs come from docs_search or docs_index, implying this is the follow-up retrieval step, and explains section-level reads. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or cover edge cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools