Read a compounding OKF Markdown Wiki page (person profile, project topic, or tasks.md) maintained by OneMira Desktop by providing a slug or relative path.
Read a compounding OKF Markdown Wiki page (person profile, project topic, or tasks.md) maintained by OneMira Desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Wiki relative path or topic/person slug, e.g., wiki/people/alex.md or tasks.md |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation and 'compounding' hints pages accumulate over time, but there is no mention of behavior on missing pages, path resolution, size limits, or permissions.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and page kinds come before any qualification. Nothing is redundant or padding.
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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, but with no output schema the description never indicates whether the call returns raw Markdown, structured metadata, or an error shape for an unknown slug.
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?
The single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including path and slug examples. The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
A specific verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('compounding OKF Markdown Wiki page') and an enumeration of page kinds (person profile, project topic, tasks.md). It is clearly distinguished from mira_wiki_update by being the read counterpart, but it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: read a page when you know its slug. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus mira_search or mira_sessions, and no stated prerequisite (e.g., that the page must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.