Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secondbrain-mcp

secondbrain-mcp

by jesusr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Page outline

page_outline
Read-only

Retrieve a page's frontmatter, headings, tags, and outgoing links without loading the full body, enabling quick structure and metadata inspection.

Instructions

Get a page's frontmatter, headings, tags and outgoing links without the full body.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "page_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description usefully discloses the returned surface (frontmatter, headings, tags, links) and that the body is omitted, but says nothing about behavior for a missing page, payload size, or link truncation.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the key scoping constraint ('without the full body') lands at the end of a front-loaded enumeration. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right move and the description does it well. However, it leaves the required identifier's format and the not-found behavior undocumented, which matters for a tool that is likely a first read step.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single 'name' parameter. 'A page's' weakly anchors it as a page identifier, but it does not clarify whether it is a title, slug, or path — a real ambiguity for a required argument.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a page's frontmatter, headings, tags and outgoing links') and enumerates exactly what is returned. 'Without the full body' implicitly distinguishes it from read_page, though it never names that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Without the full body' implies when to prefer this over reading the full page, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that read_page is the counterpart from the sibling list.

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