get_pageFetch the full text of one knowledge note by exact title or slug after searching, preserving [[wikilinks]] for accurate citations and answers.
Fetch the full text of one note by title or slug. Use after search_knowledge to read the note before answering. Preserves [[wikilinks]].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact title or slug, e.g. 'keyword-research' or 'Keyword Research' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output 'Preserves [[wikilinks]]' and that it returns the full untruncated text, but says nothing about failure behavior when the exact title/slug does not match, permission requirements, or size limits for large notes.
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?
Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage cue and output trait following in priority order. Every clause carries information.
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 with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back (full text, wikilinks intact) and where it fits in the workflow. What is missing is the behavior on a non-matching title/slug, which matters because the input must be exact.
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 100% — the single 'slug' parameter already documents the exact title-or-slug format with examples. The description's 'by title or slug' phrasing mirrors rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Fetch the full text of one note') plus the identifier options (title or slug), which an agent can immediately distinguish from search_knowledge, explore_concept, list_topics and cite. The scope is precisely delimited to a single note.
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?
Explicitly sequences the tool: 'Use after search_knowledge to read the note before answering,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects this tool. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g. when only a summary or citation is needed), but the positive routing guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.