Skip to main content
Glama
secondbrain-mcp

secondbrain-mcp

by jesusr

Read page

read_page
Read-only

Read a SilverBullet page's raw Markdown by path (omit .md) to inspect source; Lua expressions and query blocks are returned unevaluated.

Instructions

Read the raw markdown of a page. Name is the page path without .md, e.g. 'projects/website/roadmap'. Note: ${...} Lua expressions and query blocks are returned unevaluated.

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": "read_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPage name, without .md

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the agent could not get elsewhere: ${...} Lua expressions and query blocks are returned unevaluated, which affects how the returned content must be interpreted. It stops short of describing error behavior for missing pages.

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 short sentences, no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the input-format note and the evaluation caveat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (raw markdown) and the key gotcha (unevaluated expressions). Minor gaps remain around frontmatter inclusion and not-found behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'Page name, without .md', so the description's restatement is largely redundant. The concrete example 'projects/website/roadmap' does add meaning by revealing that names are hierarchical slash-separated paths, but this is a small increment over a fully documented single parameter.

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 ('Read the raw markdown of a page') and the qualifier 'raw markdown' distinguishes it from structured readers like page_outline. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement that the caller already know a page path signals this is a direct-fetch tool, not a discovery tool. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer it over search, recent_pages, or page_outline, and no exclusions are given.

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