get_info_pageRetrieve an owners' association info page as Markdown by page ID, so Claude can read and summarize portal content.
Get an information page's content as Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | No | ||
| attachments | No | ||
| content_markdown | Yes |
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('as Markdown'), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or missing-page behavior.
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 no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter read tool, though it is arguably too terse to carry usage or parameter detail.
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 read tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, so partial credit is warranted. However, the undocumented page_id and absent usage guidance leave an agent relying on the schema and sibling list to 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 0% and the single required page_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain where a page_id comes from or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (information page) plus the return format (Markdown), which separates it from the sibling list_info_pages. It doesn't distinguish itself from other content readers such as read_document or get_news, but the resource is clearly named.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling readers (read_document, get_news, get_message) or when not to use it. The only implied usage is 'you have a page_id', which is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.