read_pageFetch the full content and metadata of a OneNote page. Choose between HTML and markdown output for easier consumption.
Returns the full content and metadata for a single OneNote page. Defaults to HTML; pass format="markdown" for converted output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Content format. "html" (default) returns raw OneNote HTML; "markdown" converts it for easier consumption. | |
| pageId | Yes | OneNote page ID to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior about default format and markdown conversion, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention potential errors or auth requirements. Since the name and 'Returns' imply a read, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then adds the format variation. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect from the return value. It says 'full content and metadata' but does not detail the structure, included metadata fields, or any potential pagination/limits. This is a moderate gap for a tool that returns complex page data.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters, including the enum descriptions for format (default HTML, markdown conversion). The description largely repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('full content and metadata for a single OneNote page'). It distinguishes from list/search siblings by specifying 'single' page, making it clear this is for fetching one page's full data rather than lists or searches.
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 description implies usage for reading a page's content, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like resolve_page or search_pages, nor does it specify when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.