Fetch a non-journal Logseq page by title, case-insensitive, and optionally include embedded images. Use it to read page content from an on-disk graph.
A regular (non-journal) page by title, case-insensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| include_images | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait, case-insensitive title matching, but says nothing about what a page contains, what happens on a miss, or what include_images does. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key lookup qualifier front-loaded. Efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves room that could have been spent on the undocumented parameter.
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 lookup with no output schema this is roughly adequate, but the absence of any note on the include_images parameter or miss behavior leaves an agent guessing about one of the two inputs.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real semantics for 'title' (case-insensitive matching) but is completely silent on 'include_images', whose boolean default of true and effect on the response are undocumented anywhere.
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?
Names the resource (a regular page) and the lookup key (title), and explicitly excludes journal pages, which routes the agent away from the sibling get_journal. The verb is only implied by the name, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
The parenthetical '(non-journal)' implies when to use this versus get_journal, but it never states the condition explicitly or names the alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.