brewpage-mcp

Read page

get_page

Read-only

Retrieve stored rendered HTML or format-specific code/text by namespace and page ID, including password-protected pages when a password is supplied.

Instructions

Fetch stored rendered HTML or format-specific code/text by namespace and ID. This reads API content, not the owner-only original-source endpoint or browser viewer. Protected reads use the password header.

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": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Page ID
`password`	No	Password if the page is protected
`namespace`	Yes	Page namespace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.0Oct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Fetch/reads', and the description adds genuinely useful auth context beyond the annotations: protected pages need the password. The caveat is that it calls this a 'password header' while the schema exposes password as a normal input field, which could mislead an agent about placement.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, then disambiguation, then the auth note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of telling the agent the return payload is rendered HTML or format-specific code/text. The residual gap is that no parameter selects the format, so the 'format-specific' claim is never disambiguated.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of password for protected reads largely restates the schema's own text. It adds no syntax, format, or ID-shape detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (fetch) and a specific resource (stored rendered HTML or format-specific code/text), keyed by namespace and ID. It also carves out what it is not — the owner-only original-source endpoint and the browser viewer — so an agent can separate it from adjacent read surfaces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear selecting condition: use this for API-delivered content, not the owner-only source endpoint or the browser viewer. It does not, however, route against the format-specific read siblings (get_json, get_kv) even though it mentions 'format-specific code/text', leaving that choice to inference.

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